Incidental's page

Incidental wrote:

willuwontu wrote:

Incidental wrote:

An alchemist with three arms gains an ability that grants her two claw attacks. How many claw attacks does the alchemist have?

Two claw attacks (unless they already had some), because the ability specified it gave them two claw attacks.

Welp, that’s wrong. If they already had a single claw attack, they’d still get the other two granted by the ability.

It's like I mentioned that's a possible case or something.

It’s like. . . you didn’t. At all. At this point, I think you may be just trolling.

Incidental wrote:

Further, the abilities you’re wrong about specify one natural attack as well, so you’re inconsistent (which surprises no one).

You mean the ability that grants you a tail slap with your tail. Not a tail slap.

Which is a meaningless distinction in this context. Seriously, another non-sequitur. You have no criteria linking any of that verbiage to “infinite tail slaps.”

Incidental wrote:

You’re also ignoring posts. Stop ignoring arguments that refute you and respond.

Like I have been? I guess my 18 posts weren't enough responses.

You ignored the fact that natural attacks have been working the way described by correct persons in this thread for more than fifteen years. Do explain how, apparently, every single person to touch D&D 3.x and PF used the correct reading instead of your personal definitions of terms. All of us.

Every player.

Every editor.

Every designer.

For more than a decade.

You also ignored this:

Incidental wrote:

(And btw, when multiple natural attacks are granted on a per-limb basis, Paizo has called this out: the Mutant Creature and Mutant Goblin templates have semi-unique language that specify that you get a claw attack for each forelimb. That is extremely unusual. (Also, apropos of nothing: those templates look surprisingly strong.) If granting a natural attack per limb were standard, why would PF call out the pattern here and literally on no other game asset, or at least on game assets designers expect players to take?)

You mean the same post that also had this...

You ignored the other points. You also ignored them again. To wit:

Why did they change their wording for other feats that grant tail attacks that came later?

No wording changes of Paizo account for the ridiculous conclusion you’ve reached. None. Another non-sequitur. Show me one example of the the wording changes causing someone besides yourself since PF existed coming to your ridiculous conclusion until now.

Why did they release prone shooter as it originally was?

Why did they make monkey lunge?
Why did they change their wording for 2 templates that were made years later?

Literally not a single thing in the above quote matters. Not a single thing. You’re just spouting gibberish again. I asked you why you are the first person to assert that every Monster Manual and build since 3.x is wrong and you reply with “things Pazio has done.” I made a BROADER claim covering all of 3.x and Paizo — what would be a more difficult claim if your position weren’t absurdly wrong — and you respond with irrelevances. And I mean irrelevant in a precise sense: the statements you made in that quote neither prove nor disprove a matter at issue. If you had just typed nothing, all concerned would have been in the same situation. (Actually better off since the signal-to-noise ratio in the thread would have been improved.)

Here’s the point for the cheap seats: the fact that Paizo wrote some bad stuff does not mean that their text for Mutant Goblin and Mutant Creature does not disprove the ridiculous point at issue. Indeed, you didn’t even make an argument; you just handwaved to problems and hoped we’d fall for it.

We didn’t.

Further, once again, the fact that this never applied to 3.x is ignored. I think we should just conclude that you concede the point. So, effectively, your position is:

1) The ridiculous claim that game assets granting natural attacks can grant nigh-infinite natural attacks does not apply to 3.x (else you could give an example therein).
2) The claim applies to PF.
3) This claim only makes sense if there was a language change in PF from 3.x that even remotely implies an intent to change from 3.x on this issue.
4) The only time Paizo has EVER mentioned gaining nigh-infinite natural attacks was when it specifically undermined point (3) by calling out the nigh-infinite grant not as reminder text of the default rule, but as a specific variant from the normal rules.
5) No one on planet Earth has ever discovered your super-secret insight of the designer’s intent in the natural attack rules, not even the designers. . . until now.
6) Point (6) doesn’t count because of gibberish.

Now that I've done that, here, answer these questions for me.

You haven’t done a thing. You’ve unartfully evaded. I asked you why every designer from 3 editions disagreed with you. You dissembled. I asked you why no players made your claim until now. You literally ignored the question. Speaking of which:

Yeah I had picked that up. I'm not dodging the questions I quested the part of the ability he cut out then showed how that applies to the game. To the game, but not this thread.

You are quite literally, dodging the questions.

Pot meet kettle.

You don’t have a point. You have a position. And if you have to distract from your own position to maintain it, you don’t have a position worth anything.

No one in 3.x agreed with you. Ever. Give a single example. The only examples in PF contradict you. Explain why Mutant Creature and Goblin specifically call out your wrongness or pack it up.

This is incorrect, UMD has general rules for items.

Quote:

You make a Use Magic Device check each time you activate a device such as a wand. If you are using the check to emulate an alignment or some other quality in an ongoing manner, you need to make the relevant Use Magic Device check once per hour.

Activated items are clearly delineated from constant effect items.

Feats cannot be emulated with UMD.

I literally just said that.

However, as Weapon Finesse is a feat, unless the class feature being emulated itself grants or emulates Weapon Finesse, UMD would not circumvent the feat requirement.

Were you confused about that something?

Incidental wrote:

An alchemist with three arms gains an ability that grants her two claw attacks. How many claw attacks does the alchemist have?

Two claw attacks (unless they already had some), because the ability specified it gave them two claw attacks.

Welp, that’s wrong. If they already had a single claw attack, they’d still get the other two granted by the ability. Further, the abilities you’re wrong about specify one natural attack as well, so you’re inconsistent (which surprises no one).

You’re also ignoring posts. Stop ignoring arguments that refute you and respond. You ignored the fact that natural attacks have been working the way described by correct persons in this thread for more than fifteen years. Do explain how, apparently, every single person to touch D&D 3.x and PF used the correct reading instead of your personal definitions of terms. All of us.

Every player.

Every editor.

Every designer.

For more than a decade.

You also ignored this:

(And btw, when multiple natural attacks are granted on a per-limb basis, Paizo has called this out: the Mutant Creature and Mutant Goblin templates have semi-unique language that specify that you get a claw attack for each forelimb. That is extremely unusual. (Also, apropos of nothing: those templates look surprisingly strong.) If granting a natural attack per limb were standard, why would PF call out the pattern here and literally on no other game asset, or at least on game assets designers expect players to take?)

Why has neither gamer nor designer not come up with your bizarre scheme in well-on two decades? Why does Paizo call out every forelimb in the example above (y’know, the one that thoroughgoingly undermines your already anti-grammatical claim) but on no other natural attack-granting abilities and expect the same results?

Incidental wrote:

As such, PF and 3.x are identical in this case: if you are given 1 natural attack from a source, you have 1 natural attack from that source. The number of limbs you have do not increase the number of natural attacks you have though, in PF, they can increase the number of natural attacks you are allowed to utilize.

And this would be true if the feat said "You gain a tail slap natural attack that deals ...".

No. No it wouldn’t. What you just said is gibberish. I mean that sincerely, not as an ad hominem, but as criticism. Literally not that language or the present language would have any effect on the number of natural attacks granted.

You’re committing a non sequitur. The conclusion you reached has nothing to do with the premise you claimed.

I literally explained the state of the game from 3.x to PF on this issue. You didn’t engage any of it. You just contradicted and . . . what? Hoped that conviction would be convincing than how the vast majority of people have been playing over three editions?

Similarly, if you gained the ability as a kasatha to hold a two-handed weapon in one hand (from titan mauler), you wouldn't be limited to only holding two-handed weapons in 2 of your hands. Instead you'd be able to hold two-handed weapons in all 4.

That isn’t similar at all. You didn’t gain a natural attack in that example. You didn’t gain any extra attacks. It doesn’t compare in the slightest. You can already attack with any tail you like. You gain one natural attack with such a tail.

(And btw, when multiple natural attacks are granted on a per-limb basis, Paizo has called this out: the Mutant Creature and Mutant Goblin templates have semi-unique language that specify that you get a claw attack for each forelimb. That is extremely unusual. (Also, apropos of nothing: those templates look surprisingly strong.) If granting a natural attack per limb were standard, why would PF call out the pattern here and literally on no other game asset, or at least on game assets designers expect players to take?)

Let’s make this very simple. If you’re actually acting in good faith, simply address just one point I brought up before:

An alchemist with three arms gains an ability that grants her two claw attacks. How many claw attacks does the alchemist have?

Not how many should it have, not how many you’d like it to have — just how many does the alchemist have?

(And yes, it seems like a ridiculous question; the premise is ridiculous, so analysis will also be silly.)

Also from UMD

Quote:

Emulate a Class Feature: Sometimes you need to use a class feature to activate a magic item. In this case, your effective level in the emulated class equals your Use Magic Device check result minus 20. This skill does not let you actually use the class feature of another class. It just lets you activate items as if you had that class feature. If the class whose feature you are emulating has an alignment requirement, you must meet it, either honestly or by emulating an appropriate alignment with a separate Use Magic Device check (see above).

Agile isn't an enchantment you activate, so UMD wouldn't do anything either.

All magic items with effects on the user are activateable under UMD rules, which is why UMD is employable on items with continuous bonuses with alignment restrictions. However, as Weapon Finesse is a feat, unless the class feature being emulated itself grants or emulates Weapon Finesse, UMD would not circumvent the feat requirement.

When an ability grants a natural attack, it grants that natural attack without any consideration for the limbs associated with that attack. This concept was first found in 3.x. If you had a collection of abilities that gave you 7 claw attacks in 3.x, you had 7 claw attacks. If you gained three tail attacks as well, you had 7 claw attacks and 3 tail attacks. Those abilities did not care about how many talons, limbs, or fingernails you had.

This was true for Pathfinder as well. Until it wasn't.

Pathfinder changed these rules to take limbs into account as a restriction on natural attacks, adding complexity. Some builds (and monsters) were nerfed and/or made illegal and/or made ambiguous (due to "limbs" not being a game-mechanical concept supported by the game with exception to prehensile hands) as a result. This increased complexity. Advantages from this change have not been described.

That established, restriction is just that: a restriction. It doesn't increase the number of natural attacks granted by natural attack sources. Indeed, it agrees with 3.x in that if something gives you 7 claw attacks you "have" 7 claw attacks. However, you can only generate 1 claw attack in a full attack for every limb that has not produced a claw attack in said full attack, and only certain limbs can produce said claw attacks. . . but you still "have" them.

As such, PF and 3.x are identical in this case: if you are given 1 natural attack from a source, you have 1 natural attack from that source. The number of limbs you have do not increase the number of natural attacks you have though, in PF, they can increase the number of natural attacks you are allowed to utilize.

Otherwise, if you had 3 arms and were given a claw attack, you'd have 3 claw attacks.

N.B.: Many things that give you tail attacks give you tails: that is, a tail is a limb and a natural weapon (once an ability makes it the latter), whereas most natural attacks generators grant a natural weapon but no limbs. As such, getting extra tails from kitsune effects is probably redundant from a natural attack standpoint, unless you can transform them into mouths, legs, or arms.