Smiling Shadow's page

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?