Alchemist Feral Mutagent

[Hartygan]

So, simple question to clear up my doubt.
Feral Mutagent gives 1x bite and 2x claws.
So a single attack could be bite(1d8) or claw/claw(1d6/1d6).
A full round attack would be bite/claw/claw(1d8/1d6/1d6).
The way it is in the APG I am unsure if the claws deliver 1d6 or 1d6/1d6 as an animal would. I assume the latter option.

[Blave]

Each claw is a separate attack. An alchimist can't use 2 claws as a standard action - and neither can an animal or any other creature.

[Phage]

What if you invested heavily enough into TWF feats, could you be able to do it since they function like light weapons? Granted the max natural attacks with a standard attack without pouncing will be at best 2, right?

[Hartygan]

Blave wrote:

Each claw is a separate attack. An alchimist can't use 2 claws as a standard action - and neither can an animal or any other creature.

Okay, so it either a bite attack (1d8) or a claw attack (1d6).

On a full round attack it would be bite/claw (1d8/1d6) - correct?

[Christopher Van Horn]

Hartygan wrote:

Blave wrote:

Each claw is a separate attack. An alchimist can't use 2 claws as a standard action - and neither can an animal or any other creature.

Okay, so it either a bite attack (1d8) or a claw attack (1d6).

On a full round attack it would be bite/claw (1d8/1d6) - correct?

Nope on a standard he can attack either with the bit or a single claw, on the full attack he can attack with all 3. He does not get the benefit of extra attacks from a high base attack bonus though, so he will always have 3 on a full attack when using only those natural weapons.

[Hartygan]

Christopher Van Horn wrote:

Nope on a standard he can attack either with the bit or a single claw, on the full attack he can attack with all 3. He does not get the benefit of extra attacks from a high base attack bonus though, so he will always have 3 on a full attack when using only those natural weapons.

Okay that seems straight forward enough, thanks.

[Mojorat]

Phage wrote:

What if you invested heavily enough into TWF feats, could you be able to do it since they function like light weapons? Granted the max natural attacks with a standard attack without pouncing will be at best 2, right?

twf feats have no effect on natural attacks at all.

[Phage]

Mojorat wrote:

twf feats have no effect on natural attacks at all.

While natural attacks would never ever benefit from iterative attack bonuses, but unsure if they could benefit from Double Slice, Two-Weapon Rend, etc since they have non-iterative bonuses.

I'm pretty sure secondary natural attacks benefit from Double Slice to increase their strength bonus because they are considered offhanded light weapons.

Two-Weapon Rend would require four feats (two of which would do nothing for you) that could potentially give you 1d10+1.5STR since it only requires you to attack with at least two weapons.

The third feat that is slipping my mind is the one where you can swing with both weapons during a standard attack. Again because natural weapons are considered light they should qualify, though again they would never benefit from any of the iterative bonus TWF feats (though still require them as prereqs).

[Mojorat]

two weapon rend etc do not help with natural attacks. they are not manufactured weapons.

I'n the case of rend there is already a natural attack for this.

as far as double slice goes I'm pretty sure I don't want to see 9 armed eidolons with multi weapon and doublebslice also getting a zillion tentacle attacks at full strength bonus.

feats for twf do not work with natural attacks.

[Phage]

Mojorat wrote:

two weapon rend etc do not help with natural attacks. they are not manufactured weapons.

In the case of rend there is already a natural attack for this.

as far as double slice goes I'm pretty sure I don't want to see 9 armed eidolons with multi weapon and doublebslice also getting a zillion tentacle attacks at full strength bonus.

feats for twf do not work with natural attacks.

First off I think you're confused on what I am talking about. Iterative bonuses, that is extra attacks gained from high enough base attack bonuses, are specifically called out in the rules saying you don't benefit from them. I am not saying you do, but I am saying that some of the supplementary TWF feats do not make any references to manufactured weapons nor their incompatibility with natural weapons.

So with that being said, could you can provide a reference in the PRD or rules stating that the supplementary TWF feats requires manufactured weapons (ie all the feats not dealing with extra full round attacks)?

Per RAW, natural attacks are considered light weapons, in their rules there are specific rules stating that natural attacks do not gain normal iterative bonuses. In certain spells like Magic Weapon and Lead Blades it also specifies that natural attacks do not benefit.

However, Double Slice and Two-Weapon Rend make no references to natural attacks or manufactured weapons. DS only requires you to have any attacks with a 1/2 STR modifier. TWR only requires at least two attacks, which natural attacks are considered.

Rending Claws is a terrible feat when compared to Rend, TW Rend, or Rending Strike. It deals a static 1d6 with no strength or other modifiers. It's definitely debatable whether or not you would want to invest four feats to get TW Rend, but as far as I can find it is RAW legal to use.

Double Slice appears to follow RAW going by natural attacks own description concerning using them with manufactured weapons.

By RAW::

In addition, all of your attacks made with melee weapons and unarmed strikes are made as if you were two-weapon fighting. Your natural attacks are treated as light, off-hand weapons for determining the penalty to your other attacks. Feats such as Two-Weapon Fighting and Multiattack can reduce these penalties.

The third feat, which again I can't remember, you only gain one extra attack per standard action. Polymorph, animals and eidolons all gain access to pounce so this is an inferior option for them, however, it might be useful for an alchemist.

I'm merely looking for RAW references from what is likely RAI. If you can provide them, great. If this is just another RAI topic, though, your opinion is unsubstantiated by rules. A GM can decide if this would be problematic or Paizo could errata the feats, but having similar natural attack alternatives is in no way RAW for the TWF to not be an option.

[Mojorat]

I cannot give you specifics. typing this out on my iPad and that's a little more cutting and pasting than I want to do.

however the bit you quoted I'n the spoiler I believe is wrong ( you quoted it right that's not the issue) find the stuff about it I'n the Beastiary. I believe the rules there are different and that these override the ones I'n the core book. I don't know the page number.

[Phage]

Bestiary only lists out the general strength bonuses and how they can be used in conjunction with manufactured weapons. Aside from the iterative restriction and primary/secondary distinction, there is no other references to manufactured and natural being different in regard to TWF, be it for PCs and NPCs.

In general you wouldn't opt to use TWF feats for natural attacks because they require a lot of the TWF iterative bonuses and high dex, most of the people who ever take TWF get them as free combat feats.

I am also just using the PRD online resources so there is a chance that the book differentiates further, though I'm pretty sure this is either an overlooked RAI by Paizo or that the RAW does have them compatible with each other (albeit inefficiently).

[Bobson]

RAW (with links!):

]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 natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack's original type.

...
Some fey, humanoids, monstrous humanoids, and outsiders do not possess natural attacks. These creatures can make unarmed strikes, but treat them as weapons for the purpose of determining attack bonuses, and they must use the two-weapon fighting rules when making attacks with both hands. See Table: Natural Attacks by Size for typical damage values for natural attacks by creature size.

[url=http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html#natural-attacks wrote:

Natural Attacks (combat)]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. In addition, all of your attacks made with melee weapons and unarmed strikes are made as if you were two-weapon fighting. Your natural attacks are treated as light, off-hand weapons for determining the penalty to your other attacks. Feats such as Two-Weapon Fighting and Multiattack can reduce these penalties.

The quote I bolded is the most relevant part, but it's good to have all the RAW in one place. That quote says that they're treated as light off-hand weapons for a specific purpose (determining the penalty to your other attacks), and not for the general case. The two-weapon fighting feats would therefore reduce those penalties, but still wouldn't affect the natural attacks (because they specifically just help with the penalties). There's no language here which would let you consider them to be off-hand weapons for any other purpose (like Double Slice).

[Blave]

The rules for Natural Attacks in the combat section of the core rules are wrong. The bestiary rules are correct. Core should have gotten an errata like a year ago but it never happened for some reason.

Source: See last question HERE

[Bobson]

Blave wrote:

The rules for Natural Attacks in the combat section of the core rules are wrong. The bestiary rules are correct. Core should have gotten an errata like a year ago but it never happened for some reason.

Source: See last question HERE

Ooh, good link. It certainly clears it up. Now it just needs to get into the official errata...

[rando1000]

Just so I understand, according to this a fighter couldn't take Improved Unarmed Combat, then Two Weapon Fighting, and throw two punches, since unarmed strikes are like natural attacks?

[Blave]

rando1000 wrote:

Just so I understand, according to this a fighter couldn't take Improved Unarmed Combat, then Two Weapon Fighting, and throw two punches, since unarmed strikes are like natural attacks?

Actually, unarmed strikes follow the rules for weapons, not natural attacks most of the time. For this specific example however: You can't use TWF without two (manufactured) weapons.

[Bobson]

Blave wrote:

rando1000 wrote:

Just so I understand, according to this a fighter couldn't take Improved Unarmed Combat, then Two Weapon Fighting, and throw two punches, since unarmed strikes are like natural attacks?

Actually, unarmed strikes follow the rules for weapons, not natural attacks most of the time. For this specific example however: You can't use TWF without two (manufactured) weapons.

Or one manufactured weapon and an unarmed strike. But you can't TWF with unarmed strike alone (unless you're a monk using Flurry)

[Mojorat]

the you can't twf with unarmed strikes unless your a monk runs into large logic flaws. one of the things that contraries this I'n the rules is the barbarian brawled rage powers actually give you twf.

secondly there's no way I can Concorde of that a non monk spending all the feats would be at all unbalancing to do twf with unarmed attacks alone.