Smiling Shadow's page

Claws are by default on hands.

Citation please.

"Armor of the Pit (Tiefling)
Your fiendish traits take the form of a protective scaly skin.

Prerequisites: Tiefling.

Benefit: You gain a +2 natural armor bonus.

Special: If you have the scaled skin racial trait, you instead gain resistance 5 to two of the following energy types that you don't have resistance to already: cold, electricity, and fire."

So if you have Scaled Skin (1 nat armor, 5 resist to one energy type), and you take Armor of the Pit, your receive 5 resist to the other two energy types instead of 2 more nat armor. That is how it's worded.

Has this been answered?

What I'm actually talking about is something like using the Aspect of the Beast feat or the Maw-or-Claw Tiefling alternative race trait or anything else to add two claw natural weapons to an otherwise ordinary bipedal character who is not an eidolon. There's no indication they have to be on your hands, so by raw you can use both of them and also use a two-handed weapon in a single full attack.

The primary argument against it is that you need at least one foot to stay standing. While that's ridiculous and silly, because attacks are consecutive in a full attack, not simultaneous (you don't attack multiple times with your greatsword at the same time, you do them in order; so likewise you would obviously claw with one foot, put it on the ground, then claw with the other foot), it is still a very common thing that people think when they see a character using both his feet and his two-handed weapon in a full attack.

Basically, the core of this thread is: "This completely works by RAW, and the argument against it has zero basis in the rules, but it is nonetheless an extraordinarily common argument. Thus, the only way to avoid conflict is to get something, anything, with some weight."

I'm not asking for an addition to the FAQ or something. I would just appreciate it if anybody at Paizo could take four seconds to type "yes" or "no" to this.

:)

Short of requiring a ruling for PFS,

That'd be my issue right there. GM's rule is pretty harsh when you play with a hundred different GMs with your one character. I don't want to build one way and then get smashed because somebody had an issue with it and there isn't even a forum post to back it up. RAW it works, but again, people are people.

There are a ton of opinion threads about whether or not you can put claws on your feet in order to get two secondary attacks while your hands are full. By the RAW, you can, and you get both secondary attacks just fine. But it's such a volatile issue that I still run a high chance of finding GMs who think you have to stand on one foot during your whole turn or something (even though Monks set a precedent of being able to use both feet and both arms over the course of a full attack action, one at a time).

So I am really hoping that we can get a developer or a designer or anybody to come in here and say yes or no to this. Even though the RAW fully supports adding a pair of claw attacks (in any number of ways) to your feet and then using them after you've used a two-handed weapon or the like, this issue is just so mired in people's feelings about it that without an official ruling, it's always going to be a source of conflict in my group and others.

Can you take both?

For example: can an Aasimar take the Angel Blood heritage which changes his ability score bonuses, his spell-like ability, and his skilled bonuses, then take the Incorruptible alternate racial trait which replaces his spell-like ability?

Let's say I have a bite attack and I am holding a greatsword. I have no other natural attacks or weapons. I want to full attack.

In the Universal monster rules, it says "Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action (although often a creature must forgo one natural attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a claw, tentacle, or slam). 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."

In those same rules, it also says "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."

Basically, we have two statements regarding two different circumstances (using natural weapons with manufactured weapons and having only one natural attack), and both statements say "THIS HAPPENS ALWAYS NO MATTER WHAT." Except if you meet both of the circumstances, they can't both be true. Is there an official ruling on this?

I don't know for certain if I took up martial arts because of my love for the parkour-like grace with which classical ninjas and assassins alike dance across the cities of many an old action flick and defeat a hundred men with nothing but a butter knife and a piece of twine, or if I came to like that pop culture stereotype so much because it resembled the martial arts I already practiced, but either way, there's a definite connection.

I am a black belt in Tae Kwon Do (with an emphasis on its origins in Subak, an ancient guerrilla warfare art consisting almost entirely of joint locks and throws), and Krav Maga (a street fighting art developed in Israel which focuses on decisive, merciless strikes to vital areas in order to violently neutralize your target as quickly as possible), and I have practiced (in a much smaller quantity) both Kenpo Karate and Ninpo or Ninjitsu.

My characters in RPGs almost always show this. If the system has a Ninja, I play it. If it doesn't have one, I tend to cobble something together that's similar, generally involving a particularly stealthy and brutal Monk of some sort.