Question:
In the Alpha 3, under the Sorcerer's Draconic Bloodline (Alpha 3, PG46) it states "Claws (Ex): Starting at 1st level, you can make two claw attacks as a full-attack action. These claws are treated as natural weapons, meaning that you are always considered armed and you do not gain additional attacks for a high base attack bonus."
Now, what if a player who is playing a monstrous race (e.g. Lizardfolk) that already has claws takes this bloodline? Do they have to choose which claws they really have? Do they gain the benefits of both BAB multi-attack, etc?
Thoughts?
They use their existing claw damage or the bloodline claw damage, whichever is greater. Other than that, they receive absolutely no benefit whatsoever.
Normal races receive little benefit, either, because a sorcerer who tries to fight with claws very quickly becomes a dead sorcerer. I'm NOT a big fan of the fact that like half the bloodlines give you claw attacks or something similar.
I playtested a 14th level kobold sorcerer with the draconic bloodline and the claw attack worked out pretty well. I only used it for AoO's (and while I was feebleminded - but we're not going to talk about that), and I had fun with it. 1d6 + 1d6 acid was more than I'd have expected from a sorcerer with an AoO...
They use their existing claw damage or the bloodline claw damage, whichever is greater. Other than that, they receive absolutely no benefit whatsoever.
Normal races receive little benefit, either, because a sorcerer who tries to fight with claws very quickly becomes a dead sorcerer. I'm NOT a big fan of the fact that like half the bloodlines give you claw attacks or something similar.
Not sure if that helps. Lizardfolk have 1d4 natural claws, so clearly the sorcerer claws are better, until the Lizardfolk gets a full attack at a higher BAB. So do I say to the Lizardfolk: you get the 1d4 and BAB multi-attack or the 1d6 + energy damage?
Not sure if that helps. Lizardfolk have 1d4 natural claws, so clearly the sorcerer claws are better, until the Lizardfolk gets a full attack at a higher BAB. So do I say to the Lizardfolk: you get the 1d4 and BAB multi-attack or the 1d6 + energy damage?
My take is that the sorcerer claws are normal claw attacks like any others, so you can use them as secondary attacks in a full attack routine, and you can make a single claw attack as a standard action (for instance). So in that case you could substitute sorcerer claw damage for lizardfolk claw damage wherever you want.
I agree that the "as a full-attack action" wording doesn't necessarily support that, though.
|
I agree that the "as a full-attack action" wording doesn't necessarily support that, though.
I think the 'Full Attack Action' phrase is a little misleading. I agree with you that they should be considered equivalent to natural claw attacks (2 attacks at full BAB).
As for the comment about them being worthless I disagree. At low levels there is a good chance a sorcerer is going to get sucked into melee and having a decent attack is nice. 2 full BAB attacks that do damage comparable to most weapons the sorcerer would have access to at that level is great.
We are playtesting a 2 character group at low levels (1-2 right now) and it's pretty decent and having claws is fun flavor wise. At higher levels it won't get used much but then neither will the 1d6+ 1/2 level darts either.
-- Dennis
I think the 'Full Attack Action' phrase is a little misleading. I agree with you that they should be considered equivalent to natural claw attacks (2 attacks at full BAB).
-- Dennis
Maybe I'm just confused. :)
Let's say a lizardman (with claws) is a lvl 12 sorcerer (BAB +6/+1) and takes the arcane blood line. At level 12, he gets 3 attacks right (two claws at +6, one at +1)? If he had the draconic blood line, he'd only get 2 attacks (two claws at +6)?
I'm just trying to make sure I know the rules.
Maybe I'm just confused. :)
Let's say a lizardman (with claws) is a lvl 12 sorcerer (BAB +6/+1) and takes the arcane blood line. At level 12, he gets 3 attacks right (two claws at +6, one at +1)? If he had the draconic blood line, he'd only get 2 attacks (two claws at +6)?
I'm just trying to make sure I know the rules.
You're just confused. ;-)
You never get iterative attacks with natural weapons, but you can mix them with manufactured weapon attacks (as secondary attacks with a -5 penalty, usually). So your example character could do the following (assuming he doesn't have the Multiattack feat):
- two claw attacks (any type -- sorcerer, racial, doesn't matter) at +6 and one (secondary) bite at +1
- two morningstar attacks (say) at +6/+1, one (secondary) claw attack (any type) at +1, and one (secondary) bite attack at +1
If he had the Multiattack feat, the secondary attacks would be at +4, not +1.
- two claw attacks (any type -- sorcerer, racial, doesn't matter) at +6 and one (secondary) bite at +1
- two morningstar attacks (say) at +6/+1, one (secondary) claw attack (any type) at +1, and one (secondary) bite attack at +1
If he had the Multiattack feat, the secondary attacks would be at +4, not +1.
In the second example, did you mean "or one (secondary) bite" not "and" right?
Is there a place in the rule books I could read about this, so that it makes sense? :)
In the second example, did you mean "or one (secondary) bite" not "and" right?
My understanding is that "and" would be correct, if the lizardfolk has a natural bite attack listed.
Start with the base creature's stat block (say he's got BAB +6, +2 due to STR):
Melee 2 claws +8 (1d4+2) and
bite +3 (1d4+1).
Substitute bloodline claw damage, because it's higher than the base creature's:
Melee 2 claws +8 (1d6+2) and
bite +3 (1d4+1).
Use a morning star in place of one claw, and the other claw becomes a secondary attack, and the bite remains a secondary attack:
Melee Morning star +8/+3 (1d8+2) and
claw +3 (1d6+1) and
bite +3 (1d4+1).
That helps, but I guess what is confusing is the use of the word "secondary attack". If you have two "secondary attacks" isn't one a "tertiary" attack?
I guess that's what I'm trying to figure out is the whole secondary attack/multi attack business.
That helps, but I guess what is confusing is the use of the word "secondary attack". If you have two "secondary attacks" isn't one a "tertiary" attack?
Properly speaking in English, you would be correct, of course; but the game makes no rules distinction after "secondary." In game terms, secondary attacks get -5 to hit (or -2 if you have the Multiattack feat), and use only half your Str bonus for damage. This contradicts the Two-Weapon Fighting rules to some extent, but never mind that right now.
Iterative attacks with manufactured weapons (based on BAB) are handled first, using those rules. Natural attacks follow different rules; they're never iterative in 3.5e (although slams were in 3.0, which made things more complicated). Anyway, when you mix them, the iterative attack rules usually take precedence, and all the natural attacks then become "secondary."
|
|
Well it's actually not that complicated. Every creature that has more than one natural attack has one attack method that it is best at. This is it's primary attack. With lizardmen it's the claws. With Dragons it's bite. The primary attack is the only attack a creature does at full BAB.
Every natural attack that is not a primary attack is a secondary attack and is at -5 to hit. The multi-attack feat reduces the penalty for secondary attacks to -2 to hit.
To confuse things more some creatures with natural attacks can pick up a weapon and attack with a weapon. When they use a weapon the weapon is considered the primary attack and all other attacks are considered secondary. So the lizardman with spear in hand can get a spear attack at full BAB, a claw at BAB -5 and a bite at BAB -5.
What I think is confusing about the sorcerer ability is that it says as a full attack action the sorcerer can attack with 2 claw attacks. To me this implies that is ALL you can do as part of that full attack action, in which case your lizardman would not get a bite attack.
It would be more clear if it said "The sorcerer gains 2 claws which can be used as primary natural weapons. Each claw deals 1d6 damage (1d4 for small sorcerers) on a successful hit."
-- Dennis
Ah ok! Thank you both for your help with this.
So let me see if I got this right: Primary weapons (natural or manufactured) receive full BAB (which at higher levels means more than one attack, i.e. sorcerer 2, +6/+1). A creature with natural weapons can make "secondary" attacks (i.e. all attacks after the first at -5 each) with the rest of their natural weapons (with some exceptions it seems).
I agree with Ogre: that, I think was my interpretation of the rule as well. That the sorcerer claws are the only attacks that a player could get.
Paizo gods: I hope you're listening :)
Ah ok! Thank you both for your help with this.
So let me see if I got this right: Primary weapons (natural or manufactured) receive full BAB (which at higher levels means more than one attack, i.e. sorcerer 2, +6/+1). A creature with natural weapons can make "secondary" attacks (i.e. all attacks after the first at -5 each) with the rest of their natural weapons (with some exceptions it seems).
Almost right. In 3.5e, only manufactured weapons get the iterative attacks for high BAB, to the best of my knowledge; natural weapons never do, no matter how high your BAB. If you have a BAB of +1 and your primary natural attacks are 2 claws, you get 2 claw attacks for your primary attack without weapons. If you have a BAB of +16 and your natural attacks are 2 claws, you still get just 2 claw attacks. That's it. Silly? Probably, but that's the rules as written.
... In 3.5e, only manufactured weapons get the iterative attacks for high BAB, ... Silly? Probably, but that's the rules as written.
I looked into it once and allowing iterative attacks with a primary natural weapon and leaving the secondary attacks as is (no penalty on the primary) realy un-balances the big guys and those with alot of natural weapons (lizadmen). Dragons, for example, become a lot worst than they are since they have high BAB and already fearsome bites.
If you feel like playing with your brain think about this: If you look at it just rulewise, Unarmed Attacks (not to be confused with Natural Attacks) can also do iterative attacks for high BAB and can be combined with Natural Attacks as secondary attacks. So, theoreticaly, You Lizard man, as a full attack, could have 2 head-buts at +6/+1 (still causing AoO) at d3+str un non-leathal damage and 2 claws and one bite all 3 at +1. If someone can debuck this I would actualy be thankful.
Sorry if I'm confusing you, I just find that option funny. I never had it come up or used it in-game so I'm not sure how it translates.
If you feel like playing with your brain think about this: If you look at it just rulewise, Unarmed Attacks (not to be confused with Natural Attacks) can also do iterative attacks for high BAB and can be combined with Natural Attacks as secondary attacks. So, theoreticaly, You Lizard man, as a full attack, could have 2 head-buts at +6/+1 (still causing AoO) at d3+str un non-leathal damage and 2 claws and one bite all 3 at +1. If someone can debuck this I would actualy be thankful.
Sorry if I'm confusing you, I just find that option funny. I never had it come up or used it in-game so I'm not sure how it translates.
I've seen it happen with monk/druid multiclass characters, a.k.a. "karate bears". ;-)
...."karate bears". ;-)
My son just saw Kung-fu Panda and that's what I was thinking about :)!
EDIT: Actualy, I just remembered, I DID the Monk/Druid thing and it was pretty cool and not over the top but we house-ruled that I would only get one bite secondary attack since the limbs do get used in Unarmed Attacks. Using the Strenght of the form was enought of a advantage, in PF I'm not sure how it would turn out.
[Off-topic:] One of my all-time scariest villains was a monk/druid. No wild shape, but he was grade A certifiably insane.
EDIT: Actualy, I just remembered, I DID the Monk/Druid thing and it was pretty cool and not over the top but we house-ruled that I would only get one bite secondary attack since the limbs do get used in Unarmed Attacks. Using the Strenght of the form was enought of a advantage, in PF I'm not sure how it would turn out.
I think I saw a "Sage Advice" ruling on this topic that suggested that monk attacks would take one "limb". So a monk polymorphed into a dire ape could make a flurry of blows with one "arm" and then make one claw attack and a bite attack as secondary attacks. YMMV.
...I think I saw a "Sage Advice" ruling on this topic that suggested that monk attacks would take one "limb". So a monk polymorphed into a dire ape could make a flurry of blows with one "arm" and then make one claw attack and a bite attack as secondary attacks. YMMV.
Makes sense, it would level it with using a Manufactured weapon and iterative attacks. This should probably be the best way to deal with combining Unarmed Attacks and Natural Attacks. So no head-but for the lizardmen, just 2 punches (+6/+1), a claw and a bite +1 each. Sounds O.K. to me.
So a monk polymorphed into a dire ape could make a flurry of blows with one "arm" and then make one claw attack and a bite attack as secondary attacks.
v3.5 Main D&D FAQ explicitly states "you can't use a natural weapon as a part of a flurry of blows". House rules aside, of course.
v3.5 Main D&D FAQ explicitly states "you can't use a natural weapon as a part of a flurry of blows". House rules aside, of course.
I might be reading it differently; the quote does not seem to prevent him from using a natural weapon separately, as a secondary attack. What it seems to be saying you can't do is make a flurry of claw attacks (and a ghoul monk can't make a flurry of paralysis attacks -- although that's kind of too bad, because it would be wicked cool).
v3.5 Main D&D FAQ explicitly states "you can't use a natural weapon as a part of a flurry of blows". House rules aside, of course.
I took that as meaning "You can't do a flurry of bite attacks (instead of a flurry of unarmed strikes)" rather than "You can't do a flurry of unarmed strikes (with a bite attack on the side)".
I'll see if I can dig up the latest contradiction from WotC. ;-)
EDIT: ninja'ed by Kirth!
I might be reading it differently; the quote does not seem to prevent him from using a natural weapon separately, as a secondary attack.
Some examples.
I might be reading it differently; the quote does not seem to prevent him from using a natural weapon separately, as a secondary attack.Some examples.
You can't flurry using claws and bites.
You can flurry with unarmed strikes and monk weapons, and then add a natural attack with TWF.
If you have multiple natural attacks already as a full attack action, you can sacrifice one of them for flurry. Ie. two claws and a bite could be changed to two claws and a flurry.
On the second, my understanding was that TWF doesn't govern secondary natural attacks; the rules for secondary natural attacks do (-5, not -4/-8).
I meant primary natural attacks, like sorcerer claws. Aren't they considered light weapons? I didn't think about secondary natural attacks. Granted, I didn't check that.
For the last point I wouldn't personally allow a bite = flurry exchange; I'd make him do flurry - claw - bite.
Agreed. I was a bit hasty with my reply.
|
|
I think flurry = primary attack, other natural attacks = secondary attacks is reasonable. Or iterative attack with Primary Weapon + secondary attack of other natural weapons.
As has been pointed out, natural attacks never get iterative attacks. This makes sense because creatures that have natural attacks are generally designed and balanced at the CR level they have. Dragons for example don't have iterative attacks but have a bite, 2 claws, 2 wings and a tail attack... actually much more effective than iterative attacks because secondary attacks are at -5 versus -5/ -10/ -15...
Sorcerers claw attacks are much better than iterative attacks at any level (unless they use a magic weapon). A sorcerer doesn't even get iterative attacks until 12th level, then the second attack is at -5.
Here's an odd thought. A sorcerer/ rogue gets 2 full BAB attacks for sneak attack without any feats invested. I'm seriously starting to think of multi classing now :)
-- Dennis
I think flurry = primary attack, other natural attacks = secondary attacks is reasonable. Or iterative attack with Primary Weapon + secondary attack of other natural weapons.
I checked this from the FAQ. I had remembered it a bit wrong. It says:
"If the creature normally is allowed to make both weapon attacks and natural weapon attacks as part of the same full attack routine, the monk can do the same (making unarmed strikes in place of weapon attacks)."
Creatures with only natural attacks can't use them as part of a flurry. Or that's the official ruling.