|
Question: a player in my forthcoming PF game is building a Natural Weapon (from APG) ranger.
Multiple attacks has been brought up; the rules for natural attacks and multi-attacks is a tad vague.
It looks like she can attack with both claws without the standard 2-weapon fighting penalty - which is standard for animals/beasts. Which is pretty potent but seems balanced given the low damage of claws.
It is, wait till she figures out she can make attacks with her feet aswell as unarmed attacks in a full attack action, or so I understand from reading the multi-attack feat and other things discussed in my group. obviously she would have to take improved unarmed strike to make them lethal, but it is possible for an half-orc ranger to have 4 attacks at level two doing lethal damage
That's not quite true.
The description of the improved unarmed strike specifies: "Unarmed strikes do not count as natural weapons"
Thus, if the ranger decided to use unarmed strike (with his feet for example), he would get 1 attack based on his BAB at 2nd level. He would need to take TWF for a second kick (and take a -2 to all attacks that round). Additionally his claws would become secondary weapons and take a -5 penalty on attacks (and add only 1/2 damage) in addition to the TWF penalty.
However, having a racial bite attack, claws, and a 1handed weapon will allow you to make 3 attacks at 1st level. Your claw & bite will be secondary, but Multiattack will shore that up considerably.
That was kind of my point Vip00. It may have not made sense, but taking improved unarmed strike, the half-orc ability that gave you the bite and multiattack, could gain you prolly more realistically level 3 since level two will get you the claws, a full attack action of unarmed strike, claw claw bite. the claw claw bite will be at -2 each. It is not teh most brutally damaging class but it is a style play build.
Err I think you're missing my point. Allow me to give an example.
Assume a 3rd level half orc ranger with 18 str.
feats: improved unarmed strike, aspect of the beast (claws), multiattack, endurance
Attack routine: unarmed strike +7 (1d3+4), bite +5 (1d4+2), 2 claws +5 (1d4+2)
average damage= 6+4.5+9=19.5 assuming all attacks hit
Assume another 3rd level half orc ranger with 18 str.
feats: power attack, aspect of the beast (claws), weapon focus (claw), endurance
Attack routine: bite +6 (1d4+6), 2 claws +7 (1d4+6) - including power attack
average damage=8.5+17=25.5 - additionally he will hit more often
Note how by avoiding wasting extra feats on unarmed strike and multiattack (as well well as avoiding making the natural attacks secondary half str bonus!) you can make the build much more efficient.
Also note, if you're not playing PFS, you can take 'Improved Unarmed Attack' from the bestiary and increase the claws from 1d4 to 1d6.
Err I think you're missing my point. Allow me to give an example.
Assume a 3rd level half orc ranger with 18 str.
feats: improved unarmed strike, aspect of the beast (claws), multiattack, enduranceAttack routine: unarmed strike +7 (1d3+4), bite +5 (1d4+2), 2 claws +5 (1d4+2)
average damage= 6+4.5+9=19.5 assuming all attacks hitAssume another 3rd level half orc ranger with 18 str.
feats: power attack, aspect of the beast (claws), weapon focus (claw), enduranceAttack routine: bite +6 (1d4+6), 2 claws +7 (1d4+6) - including power attack
average damage=8.5+17=25.5 - additionally he will hit more oftenNote how by avoiding wasting extra feats on unarmed strike and multiattack (as well well as avoiding making the natural attacks secondary half str bonus!) you can make the build much more efficient.
I see your point, I don't care for either way. I think natural attacks for PC's as primary attacks should be a bit better but whatever.
Also note, if you're not playing PFS, you can take 'Improved Unarmed Attack' from the bestiary and increase the claws from 1d4 to 1d6.
Improved Natural Attack is what you're thinking of, and it's one of the largest traps available. If most people can agree that Weapon Specialization is a waste of a feat slot it should be a no-brainer that something that increases your average damage by 1 is beyond "meh."
Also note, if you're not playing PFS, you can take 'Improved Unarmed Attack' from the bestiary and increase the claws from 1d4 to 1d6.Improved Natural Attack is what you're thinking of, and it's one of the largest traps available. If most people can agree that Weapon Specialization is a waste of a feat slot it should be a no-brainer that something that increases your average damage by 1 is beyond "meh."
Sorry, yes, INA. However, since you normally have multiples of the attack in question (2 claws) it's actually increasing your average damage by 2 (1 per attack).
You fail to realize that it continues to be in effect also when things like 'enlarge person' are utilized, further increasing the die size of each attack. Used correctly, it can pump up your damage nicely.
However, having a racial bite attack, claws, and a 1handed weapon will allow you to make 3 attacks at 1st level. Your claw & bite will be secondary, but Multiattack will shore that up considerably.However without a third hand free, you have no limbs to wield that one handed weapon. Your three attacks are from your two claws and your bite.
You didn't read his statement LazarX. He said 1 Weapon, 1 Claw, 1 Bite. That's 3 attacks, and perfectly valid. The claw & bite become secondary, but the Multiweapon feat cuts down the penalty on that.
At 1st level, not sure it's worth the effort, as the claw/claw/bite are probably going to be better, as they all go off at full BAB, but it's certainly valid the way he described it.
However, having a racial bite attack, claws, and a 1handed weapon will allow you to make 3 attacks at 1st level. Your claw & bite will be secondary, but Multiattack will shore that up considerably.However without a third hand free, you have no limbs to wield that one handed weapon. Your three attacks are from your two claws and your bite.You didn't read his statement LazarX. He said 1 Weapon, 1 Claw, 1 Bite. That's 3 attacks, and perfectly valid. The claw & bite become secondary, but the Multiweapon feat cuts down the penalty on that.
At 1st level, not sure it's worth the effort, as the claw/claw/bite are probably going to be better, as they all go off at full BAB, but it's certainly valid the way he described it.
Yeah, at 1st level its worth more to go full-natural, but as your BAB crests into additional attacks it can be more worthwhile. I haven't run the numbers, but full BAB classes are likely more rewarded by taking advantage of this.
Here's the rules problem here and it's why it comes up so often. (the eidolon threads are a nightmare for this reason) There are rules for natural attacks, rules for iterative attacks, there are NO rules for combining both at once as most creatures only use one or the other at a time.
Wait, what? The rules are clearly defined:
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.
Here's the rules problem here and it's why it comes up so often. (the eidolon threads are a nightmare for this reason) There are rules for natural attacks, rules for iterative attacks, there are NO rules for combining both at once as most creatures only use one or the other at a time.
No one said he could combine iterative attacks with natural attacks at 1st level, he has no iterative attacks at first level.
As to adding natural attacks to weapon attacks, the rules are there in the book, as quoted above by someone else.
For those wanting to look up the rule in the books, it can be found in the Beastiary, Universal Monster Rules, Natural Attacks
So for those of you who like math, which would be better? Assume 10 Str for simplicity. Also assuming the character using the sword with his natural attacks has multiattack (so -2 on all attacks instead of -5).
Up through 5th level I can see it being better to claw, claw, bite. At 6th it may also be better to stick with claw, claw, bite. I'm wondering at what point the BAB catches up enough to make it better to use weapon with claw, bite.
6th level:
Claw +6 1d4, Claw +6 1d4, Bite +6 1d4
OR
Sword +4 1d8, Claw +4 1d4, Bite +4 1d4, Sword -1 1d8
11th level:
Claw +11 1d4, Claw +11 1d4, Bite +11 1d4
OR
Sword +9 1d8, Claw +9 1d4, Bite +9 1d4, Sword +4 1d8, Sword -1 1d8
16th level:
Claw +16 1d4, Claw +16 1d4, Bite +16 1d4
OR
Sword +14 1d8, Claw +14 1d4, Bite +14 1d4, Sword +9 1d8, Sword +4 1d8
Just for grins, let's take DrDew's examples.
Assume target AC is 10+level of PC.
We'll also assume a Ranger, so BAB = 1.
10 Strength to make everything simple, no magic weapons, no favored enemy bonuses.
1st Level
Claw/Claw/Bite->+1/+1/+1->50%(1d4)+50%(1d4)+50%(1d4) = 1.25+1.25+1.25=3.75, or 4hp
Sword/Claw/Bite->+1/-1/-1->50%(1d6)+40%(1d4)+40%(1d4) = 1.75+1+1 = 3.75, or 4hp (same)
6th Level
Claw/Claw/Bite->+6/+6/+6->50%(1d4)+50%(1d4)+50%(1d4) = 4hp
Sword/Claw/Bite/Sword->+6/+4/+4/+1->50%(1d6)+40%(1d4)+40%(1d4)+30%(1d 6) = 1.75+1+1+1.05 = 4.8 or 5hp
That's probably enough, as you'll see, if you scale the AC, it's always better to use the weapon/claw/sword, or at least no worse. However, if the AC doesn't scale, is it better to use the full attack? For example, let's take a 16th level hitting an AC of 24.
16th Level (AC 24)
Claw/Claw/Bite->+16/+16/+16=65%(1d4)+65%(1d4)+65%(1d4)= 1.625+1.625+1.625 = 4.875 or 5hp
Sword/Claw/Bite/Sword/Sword->+16/+14/+14/+11/+6=65%(1d6)+45%(1d4)+45%(1d 4)+40%(1d6)+15%(1d6)=2.275+1.125+1.125+1.4+0.525 = 6.45, or 6hp
So it's still better.
If we add in Improved Natural Attack (Claws), the numbers come out a little better for the natural weapons.
16th Level (AC 24)
Claw/Claw/Bite->+16/+16/+16=65%(1d6)+65%(1d6)+65%(1d4)= 2.275+2.275+1.625 = 6.175 or 6hp
Sword/Claw/Bite/Sword/Sword->+16/+14/+14/+11/+6=65%(1d6)+45%(1d6)+45%(1d 4)+40%(1d6)+15%(1d6)=2.275+1.575+1.125+1.4+0.525 = 6.97, or 7hp
In other words, you're almost always better off not using natural weapons instead of a mix. Which means, GMs need to quite doing the 'OMG Natural weapons' dance. Let the guy claw/claw/bite if he's having fun.
Just for grins, let's take DrDew's examples.
Assume target AC is 10+level of PC.
We'll also assume a Ranger, so BAB = 1.
10 Strength to make everything simple, no magic weapons, no favored enemy bonuses.1st Level
Claw/Claw/Bite->+1/+1/+1->50%(1d4)+50%(1d4)+50%(1d4) = 1.25+1.25+1.25=3.75, or 4hp
Sword/Claw/Bite->+1/-1/-1->50%(1d6)+40%(1d4)+40%(1d4) = 1.75+1+1 = 3.75, or 4hp (same)6th Level
Claw/Claw/Bite->+6/+6/+6->50%(1d4)+50%(1d4)+50%(1d4) = 4hp
Sword/Claw/Bite/Sword->+6/+4/+4/+1->50%(1d6)+40%(1d4)+40%(1d4)+30%(1d 6) = 1.75+1+1+1.05 = 4.8 or 5hpThat's probably enough, as you'll see, if you scale the AC, it's always better to use the weapon/claw/sword, or at least no worse. However, if the AC doesn't scale, is it better to use the full attack? For example, let's take a 16th level hitting an AC of 24.
16th Level (AC 24)
Claw/Claw/Bite->+16/+16/+16=65%(1d4)+65%(1d4)+65%(1d4)= 1.625+1.625+1.625 = 4.875 or 5hp
Sword/Claw/Bite/Sword/Sword->+16/+14/+14/+11/+6=65%(1d6)+45%(1d4)+45%(1d 4)+40%(1d6)+15%(1d6)=2.275+1.125+1.125+1.4+0.525 = 6.45, or 6hpSo it's still better.
If we add in Improved Natural Attack (Claws), the numbers come out a little better for the natural weapons.
16th Level (AC 24)
Claw/Claw/Bite->+16/+16/+16=65%(1d6)+65%(1d6)+65%(1d4)= 2.275+2.275+1.625 = 6.175 or 6hp
Sword/Claw/Bite/Sword/Sword->+16/+14/+14/+11/+6=65%(1d6)+45%(1d6)+45%(1d 4)+40%(1d6)+15%(1d6)=2.275+1.575+1.125+1.4+0.525 = 6.97, or 7hpIn other words, you're almost always better off not using natural weapons instead of a mix. Which means, GMs need to quite doing the 'OMG Natural weapons' dance. Let the guy claw/claw/bite if he's having fun.
Rending Claws feat would probably do a lot to balance that out. Hit with both claws and get a free 1d6.
ignoring str bonus is a mistake. assume 20 str instead and a higher ac so we don't have to scale hit chances (since relative to each other they don't change), only damage.
6th Level
Claw/Claw/Bite->+6/+6/+6->50%(1d4+5)+50%(1d4+5)+50%(1d4+5) = 3*(7.5*50%)= 11.25 dmg
Sword/Claw/Bite/Sword->+6/+4/+4/+1->50%(1d6+5)+40%(1d4+2)+40%(1d4+2)+ 30%(1d6+5) = 4.25+1.8+1.8+2.5 = 10.4 dmg
because you originally have 3 attacks that add full str bonus at a full BAB with natural weapons, you deal more damage than when you have 1 attack with full str bonus at full BAB and 3 attacks at lower BAB and str bonuses. Always test things in applicable situations >.<
ignoring str bonus is a mistake. assume 20 str instead and a higher ac so we don't have to scale hit chances (since relative to each other they don't change), only damage.
6th Level
Claw/Claw/Bite->+6/+6/+6->50%(1d4+5)+50%(1d4+5)+50%(1d4+5) = 3*(7.5*50%)= 11.25 dmg
Sword/Claw/Bite/Sword->+6/+4/+4/+1->50%(1d6+5)+40%(1d4+2)+40%(1d4+2)+ 30%(1d6+5) = 4.25+1.8+1.8+2.5 = 10.4 dmgbecause you originally have 3 attacks that add full str bonus at a full BAB with natural weapons, you deal more damage than when you have 1 attack with full str bonus at full BAB and 3 attacks at lower BAB and str bonuses. Always test things in applicable situations >.<
Oh I forgot about half str bonus for the natural attacks if you use a weapon.
You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack. For example, you cannot make a claw attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a longsword. When you make additional attacks in this way, all of your natural attacks are treated as secondary natural attacks, using your base attack bonus minus 5 and adding only 1/2 of your Strength modifier on damage rolls.
So what happens when you scale that up to 11th level and 16th level?
ignoring str bonus is a mistake. assume 20 str instead and a higher ac so we don't have to scale hit chances (since relative to each other they don't change), only damage.
6th Level
Claw/Claw/Bite->+6/+6/+6->50%(1d4+5)+50%(1d4+5)+50%(1d4+5) = 3*(7.5*50%)= 11.25 dmg
Sword/Claw/Bite/Sword->+6/+4/+4/+1->50%(1d6+5)+40%(1d4+2)+40%(1d4+2)+ 30%(1d6+5) = 4.25+1.8+1.8+2.5 = 10.4 dmgbecause you originally have 3 attacks that add full str bonus at a full BAB with natural weapons, you deal more damage than when you have 1 attack with full str bonus at full BAB and 3 attacks at lower BAB and str bonuses. Always test things in applicable situations >.<
I think there's a problem here.
Shouldn't Sword/Claw/Bite/Sword at level 6 be +4/+4/+4/-3? He's TWF so he gets -2 on his attacks assuming he has the feat. Also the second weapon attack is at 5 less than the first.
This changes the math to 40%(1d6+5)+40%(1d4+2)+40%(1d4+2)+??? = ~7-8
If you change the strength, then you change ALL the numbers.
Remember, that strength you added in to the damage also added to the to-hit numbers.
The problem is, every variable you add in makes the math more complex.
I'll try to set up a spread sheet with different strengths/setups and post the results when I have a chance.
ignoring str bonus is a mistake. assume 20 str instead and a higher ac so we don't have to scale hit chances (since relative to each other they don't change), only damage.
6th Level
Claw/Claw/Bite->+6/+6/+6->50%(1d4+5)+50%(1d4+5)+50%(1d4+5) = 3*(7.5*50%)= 11.25 dmg
Sword/Claw/Bite/Sword->+6/+4/+4/+1->50%(1d6+5)+40%(1d4+2)+40%(1d4+2)+ 30%(1d6+5) = 4.25+1.8+1.8+2.5 = 10.4 dmgbecause you originally have 3 attacks that add full str bonus at a full BAB with natural weapons, you deal more damage than when you have 1 attack with full str bonus at full BAB and 3 attacks at lower BAB and str bonuses. Always test things in applicable situations >.<
I think there's a problem here.
Shouldn't Sword/Claw/Bite/Sword at level 6 be +4/+4/+4/-3? He's TWF so he gets -2 on his attacks assuming he has the feat. Also the second weapon attack is at 5 less than the first.
This changes the math to 40%(1d6+5)+40%(1d4+2)+40%(1d4+2)+??? = ~7-8
Mixing in natural attacks doesn't incur the TWF penalties, which is helpful. What I can't understand, though, is why nobody is factoring in power attack. Power attack is necessary for melee, plain and simple.
Building on a very base assumption (ignoring crits): 18 strength, power attack, & Multiattack. This assumes your highest attack has a 60% chance to hit the enemy after power attack penalties (flanking, buffs, etc).
BAB 1
Natural: Claw/Claw/Bite >> +4/+4/+4 >> 60%(1d4+6)+60%(1d4+6)+60%(1d6+6) >> 5.1 + 5.1 + 5.7 = 15.9
Weapon: Sword/Claw/Bite >> +4/+2/+2 >> 60%(1d8+6)+50%(1d4+3)+50%(1d6+3) >> 6.3 + 3.3 + 3.9 = 13.5
BAB 6
Natural: Claw/Claw/Bite >> +8/+8/+8 >> 60%(2d4+16)+60%(1d8+8) >> 12.6 + 7.5 = 20.1
Weapon: Sword/Claw/Bite/Sword >> +8/+6/+6/+3 >> 60%(1d8+8)+50%(1d4+4)+50%(1d6+4)+35%(1d8+8) = 7.5 + 3.25 + 3.75 + 4.375 = 18.875
BAB 11
Natural: Claw/Claw/Bite >> +12/+12/+12 >> 60%(2d4+20)+60%(1d6+10) >> 15 + 8.1 = 23.1
Weapon: Sword/Claw/Bite/Sword/Sword >> +12/+10/+10/+7/+2 >> 60%(1d8+10)+50%(1d4+5)+50%(1d6+5)+35%(1d8+10)+10%(1d8+10) >> 8.7 + 3.75 + 4.25 + 5.075 + 1.45 = 23.225
This all ignores enhancement bonuses, elemental damage, scaling strength, DR, etc. All in all, it seems that natural weapons are a very solid choice that keeps in line with the weapon combination, though begins to fall behind simply on the fact that you can get lucky shots with the high amount of attacks you can make with the combination.
Mixing in natural attacks doesn't incur the TWF penalties, which is helpful. What I can't understand, though, is why nobody is factoring in power attack. Power attack is necessary for melee, plain and simple.Building on a very base assumption (ignoring crits): 18 strength, power attack, & Multiattack. This assumes your highest attack has a 60% chance to hit the enemy after power attack penalties (flanking, buffs, etc).
And this is why I have just about given up on the spreadsheet. The problem is, there's dozens of variables you can throw in, and each one affects which is better, natural or multi + weapons.
Mixing in natural attacks doesn't incur the TWF penalties, which is helpful. What I can't understand, though, is why nobody is factoring in power attack. Power attack is necessary for melee, plain and simple.Building on a very base assumption (ignoring crits): 18 strength, power attack, & Multiattack. This assumes your highest attack has a 60% chance to hit the enemy after power attack penalties (flanking, buffs, etc).
And this is why I have just about given up on the spreadsheet. The problem is, there's dozens of variables you can throw in, and each one affects which is better, natural or multi + weapons.
Which is what I'm finding, too. The two seem pretty comparable, depending on your party make-up or class selection. Druids/rangers/summoners are gonna favor natural attacks due to having magic to buff them, while clerics/inquisitors/wizards are gonna favor weapons for the same reason. DM styles are likely to dictate this as well, since the natural weapon path requires strict selections in "Weapons" and usually costs a lot more.
The conclusion that I'm coming to from all of this is that for the first 5 levels it's best to use claw/claw/bite and from 6th level on it's going to be pretty balanced based on what feats you take and how you play. You can add a weapon when you need a particular type of damage or effect and you'll be equally as effective.