|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
If this has already been covered and someone can point me towards the appropriate thread, then great... otherwise...
How many off-hand attacks can a character take in a full-attack action?
Now, to me, the answer is simple: the Two-Weapon Fighting text (on page 202 of the Core book) states that...
'... If you wield a second weapon in your off-hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon...'
... which to me means you get exactly one 'extra' attack. To get more you need the Improved and Greater versions of Two-Weapon Fighting.
Others seem to think you get one 'extra' attack per off-hand weapon you're using. To me this makes little sense - should a character using two swords, two spiked gauntlets, and spiked armour get 4 'extra' attacks from all his off-hand weapons?
This seems to be cropping up more and more, thanks to the increase in 'multi-armed' options for PCs (such as Summoners' eidolons and Alchemists' vestigial limbs). Can, for example, and eidolon be built with an extra 30 arms to gain 31 off-hand attacks? Doesn't seem right, at least not in regards to game balance, but that seems to be a common claim in the eidolon-build threads.
The oft-taken (by such builds) Multi-Weapon Fighting Feat references the Two-Weapon Fighting text in the core book, so I guess it all comes down to how you interpret the text above: one extra attack, or one extra attack per weapon?
When using multiple manufactured weapons, you are correct. You only get a single extra attack on a full attack, regardless of the number of limbs and weapons you have available (barring a special ability like the maralith has).
However, when using natural attacks, you get one attack per limb when making a full attack, regardless of how many limbs that is. This can lead to a little confusion (especially for 3.5 players, due to the way that Pathfinder changed natural weapons).
If making attacks using both manufactured and natural weapons, you'd get your full iteratives, your one additional attack from TWF, and then any remaining natural attacks (which are not being used to wield a weapon) can be taken as if they were secondary natural attacks.
Multi-Weapon Fighting, which is not available to players without GM permission as it is a monster feat, seems to strongly imply that you gain an additional attack per additional weapon. However, it does not state this explicitly. However, if this is not the intended use of the feat, then it's pretty much useless, except for allowing multi-limbed creatures take TWF with a slightly lower DEX score. Note, however, that there are no Improved or Greater version of this feat, and so additional iteratives on the off-hand weapons are not gained. It's just full iteratives for the main hand, plus one additional attack per limb.
I think Mauril refers to the fact that Multiweapon Fighting is out of the Bestiary (and not a Core Rulebook) and thus subject to DM approval? Per the PRD for Monster Feats...
Most of the following feats apply specifically to monsters, although some player characters might qualify for them.
We don't allow Monster Feats for PC's without express consent of the DM in our group in any case. /salute!
actually you do not need GM permission to get access to multiweapon fighting.If you pick up two weapon fighting when you only have 2 arms and later you permanently gain more arms, multiweapon fighting automatically replaces it. It even says so in the feat.
Automatically doesn't mean "Without the GM's permission" -- no matter how much you want to believe it does. It also doesn't ignore the prerequisites of multiweapon fighting -- one of which as a monster feat is GM permission.
|
So my summoner doesn't need GM permission to take Quicken Spell-Like Ability?
Benefit: Choose one of the creature's spell-like abilities, subject to the restrictions described in this feat. The creature can use the chosen spell-like ability as a quickened spell-like ability three times per day (or less, if the ability is normally usable only once or twice per day).
Using a quickened spell-like ability is a swift action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity. The creature can perform another action—including the use of another spell-like ability (but not another swift action)—in the same round that it uses a quickened spell-like ability. The creature may use only one quickened spell-like ability per round.
The creature can only select a spell-like ability duplicating a spell with a level less than or equal to 1/2 its caster level (round down) – 4. For a summary, see Table: Quickened Spell-Like Abilities.
A spell-like ability that duplicates a spell with a casting time greater than 1 full round cannot be quickened.
That is going to be fun.
The same place it states it in every book -- at the beginning where it tells the GM to allow or not allow whatever he is comfortable with and to not allow that which he doesn't want in his games. I'll try to hunt down a more specific reference for you later though I would add in where the races themselves in the bestiary are not assumed to be player's options either -- in fact the bestiary itself is the GM's book much more than it is the player's book -- everything in it could be false for every monster you meet in a campaign and the GM would be right in doing so.
Now personally at the point the alchemist has 3 or more hands and a dexterity of over 13 I'm not going to mind him taking multiweapon fighting -- he burned a feat and at least one discovery on getting it and it is honestly going to be weaker than two weapon fighting with only 3 hands. But I think a lot of the extra limb stuff in pathfinder is currently rather obtuse and poorly written or thought out.
|
|
Vestigial arm does not get you multiweapon fighting.
"The arm does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round, though the arm can wield a weapon and make attacks as part of the alchemist’s attack routine (using two-weapon fighting)."
no extra attacks and it says you use two weapon fighting.
But TWF does grant an extra attack - one extra off-hand attack - that's the whole point. Isn't the vestigial arm text just saying you don't get any attacks or actions more than that - so you can't, for example, make an extra full BAB attack with no penalties, or even take an extra Move action to pull a potion from your backpack (or whatever). In essence, isn't it saying: go ahead and attack with the thing, but if you do you take normal TWF penalties?
The eidolon evolution only says that you do not get any natural attacks from the arm. It doesn't prevent you from using multiweapon fighting to get extra attacks with the extra arms.
Right - it says no extra natural attacks, but the limbs can still wield weapons... which is what the vestigial arms text also says. The limbs evolutions doesn't mention Multi-Weapon Fighting, although that seems to be at the heart of the matter...
However, when using natural attacks, you get one attack per limb when making a full attack, regardless of how many limbs that is...
Right - one attack per natural attack. Even with the primary / secondary attack types, and subtracting some for tying up (for example) a claw attack with holding a weapon instead, that part, at least, seems comparatively clear.
Multi-Weapon Fighting, which is not available to players without GM permission as it is a monster feat, seems to strongly imply that you gain an additional attack per additional weapon. However, it does not state this explicitly. However, if this is not the intended use of the feat, then it's pretty much useless, except for allowing multi-limbed creatures take TWF with a slightly lower DEX score. Note, however, that there are no Improved or Greater version of this feat, and so additional iteratives on the off-hand weapons are not gained. It's just full iteratives for the main hand, plus one additional attack per limb.
I guess that's the source of the confusion then? Multi-Weapon Fighting only mentions a reduction in the penalties for using weapons in both the primary and the off-hands, and that it replaces (and works like) Two-Weapon Fighting for creatures with more than two arms. Rather than imply that the Feat itself grants any extra attacks, doesn't it imply that either you can take those attacks anyway (with the listed higher penalties under the 'Normal' sub-heading) or that it just works like TWF and you don't get any attacks above and beyond what TWF would give you?
(As for the 'improved' and 'greater' versions, I always assumed that since it says it 'replaces' TWF that such 'replacement' included qualifying for the improved and greater TWF Feats.)
|
|
But TWF does grant an extra attack - one extra off-hand attack - that's the whole point.[/quote
I'm still working through my thoughts on a couple of things, so don't have a comprehensive opinion yet. But, if this is the whole point, then it's a bit easier. :)
TWF does not grant an extra attack. Anyone can gain an extra attack by fighting with two weapons. TWF merely reduces the penalties for doing so.
|
|
TWF does not grant an extra attack. Anyone can gain an extra attack by fighting with two weapons. TWF merely reduces the penalties for doing so.
And the option to do so is listed under 'Two-Weapon Fighting' on page 202 of the Core book, which is what I was refering to - the TWF option, not the related TWF Feat. TWF = Two-Weapon Fighting (for when I get tired and lazy in my typing...).
Sorry for any confusion there.
|
|
I think there is some ambiguity, but here's how it looks to me:
Looking just at manufactured weapons for the moment: A creature gets a number of iterative attacks based upon BAB. It can take an additional attack for additional hand. Doing so has penalties to hit. Feats can reduce those penalties. Those feats are Two Weapon Fighting (and tree) and Multi-Weapon Fighting, depending on whether a creature has two hands or more than two hands.
This looks to be how Marlith is handled (MM and Bestiary) and how Athach is handled (MM only). Xill appears to be handled differently in both MM and Bestiary than this, but I know I found this confusing in SRD days, so may have missed something. The net result is that it doesn't look that looking at them as a set confirms either the 1 extra attack/hand nor 1 extra attack total scenarios.
This is sorta why I mentioned before that the feat TWF just reduces the penalties. The rules for fighting with two weapons is directed at humanoids for the most part. But, looking at Athach from MM, and it has no special abilities regarding its three hands. The math merely calcs out that it gets iteratives for primary hand, an additional attack for each off-hand (2 off hands), and a reduced penalty due to Multi-Weapon Fighting. Marlith gets the same treatment in both MM and Bestiary, with merely no penalty at all due to a special ability. Xill...seems odd man out.
I don't know of any rule that supports the idea that each additional hand can make an attack other than the implied rules stemming from using weapons in hands that can otherwise make a natural attack. Happy to learn where it is or what contradicts the idea.
It does seem very much that, from entries like the marilith or the xill, that gaining one attack per limb is the norm, as long as there is a weapon in/on that limb. If you've got three limbs, each holding a dagger, you get at least three attacks on a full attack.
The special abilities for both those creatures don't change how many attacks they get, but simply determine what penalties all of those attacks take. You'll note that neither creature has even taken the Multiweapon Fighting feat. Since their abilities don't call out gaining extra attacks as a special exception, and they don't have any feats that talk about gaining extra attacks, which implies that those extra attacks are the norm and not an exception.
Everything is GM's permission, including the mere existence of your character.
|
|
One of the problems with all this seems to be that there aren't any monsters (at least in Bestiary 1 and 2) which use manufactured weapons in multiple limbs, but which don't have the Multiweapon Mastery quality. While, yes, it seems to imply that each extra off-hand weapon you have grants you an off-hand attack, even one published and official example of a multi-weapon-using created without any special bells and whistles added would be enough to make a solid ruling one way or another...
If anyone can find one, even in one of the pubished Pathfinder APs or somewhere, please let us know!
Of course, if the rule is one extra attack per off-hand weapon, then the balance of the game shifts considerably from what I imagine most people are used to...
Off-hand attacks don't appear to suffer from increasing penalties - one off-hand attack or one-hundred, you still get the same flat penalty to all of them - which makes such a ruling ripe for abuse straight away... and makes something of a mockery of the concept of limited attacks at all. Not only does the Summoner's eidolon become completely broken (since they can, essentially, buy an extra attack for every evolution point they spend - due to getting 2 limbs for each 2 point purchase of the limbs evolution - and thus totally bypass the built-in limits on the number of natural attacks they have), and the Alchemist's vestigial arms a little more attractive (so to speak...), but both spiked armour and blade boots are Martial weapons which are specifically called out as being usable as off-hand attacks... (and that's assuming you don't, for some reason, allow a character to use spiked guantlets, unarmed strikes with knees, elbows, the head, etc. as extra off-hand attacks too). Any Fighter not wearing spiked armour and blade boots becomes something of an idiot, since he's giving up the option (he doesn't even have to use them if he doesn't want to) of an extra 3 attacks per round.
... That doesn't, to me, seem like it'd be sensible if that was RAI.
Admittedly, the core book was written / cut-n-paste before things like blade boots, eidolons, and vestigial arms were a concern, but spiked armour still looms there as a candidate for, let's face it, unmitigated cheese-mongering, if multiple off-hand attacks are allowed. Plus, that's before we even get to the Improved and Greater TWF Feats, which add a second and third extra attack to your off-hand weapons. So that's, let's see... three for the shortsword in your left hand, three for your spiked armour, and three for each blade boot - twelve off-hand attacks, along with the longsword in your right hand getting full iterative attacks. Why not wear a barbazu beard and gain an extra three for a grand total of fifteen off-hand attacks? That's only including those weapons which specifically call-out that they grant off-hand attacks... I just can't see how that's balanced...
Anyone got any insights, rules quotes, or obscure Pathfinder monster or NPC stats to support either position: one extra attack total or one extra attack per off-hand weapon?
|
|
Of course, if the rule is one extra attack per off-hand weapon, then the balance of the game shifts considerably from what I imagine most people are used to...
Some of the slippery slope arguments don't really pan out here. My understanding is one attack per hand/substituted weapon in natural attack limb. This limits some of the abuse you're talking about. Specifically:
1. Spikes, etc., can be used for the off-hand attack, but doing so gives up the off-hand attack. So, a humanoid might have multiple weapons that can be used for off-hand attacks, but still only gets one.
2. Vestigal limbs explicitly don't grant an additional attack or limb. The alchemist can use the limb for off-hand attack, but doesn't gain additional attacks. So, Alchemist could use two-handed weapon and vestigal limb (two attacks), but it is the same as two-handed weapon and spikes for the number of attacks.
3. Eidolon's can gain additional natural attacks, including claws and slams. By the universal monster rules, these can be used for weapon attacks. Doing so costs the natural attack the limb would use normally for those attacks. So, if you had an Eidolon that had 6 natural attacks that could be converted, he substitutes for six weapon attacks, at penalty. Can it be optimized? Sure. Anything can. That said, I'm not up on Eidolon cheese. :)
...
Others seem to think you get one 'extra' attack per off-hand weapon you're using. To me this makes little sense - should a character using two swords, two spiked gauntlets, and spiked armour get 4 'extra' attacks from all his off-hand weapons?
...
Actually the character with 2 swords, 2 spiked gauntlets and a spiked armor, would get 3 attacks. Either a mainhand sword or gauntlet, and then offhand sword or gauntlet, and the spiked armor. Becouse you cant use the same limb for multiple different attacks. (the gauntlets and sword is wielded by your hand slot)
@ howie23, considering the eidolon, yes it does have to give up the natural attack in that limb to use it for a manufactored weapon, but there is no rule for the eidolon not to have 12 arms and 6 tentacles. if it is permitted to only use 6 natural attacks, then it can still wield 12 swords and use the tentacles for secondary natural attacks. Is it cheesy, yes. But as has been discussed many times about the eidolon on this forum, this is the one rule the developers wont FAQ or errata away. Unfortunately.
@ profpots. the problem with using the TWF tree with fx 5 different weapons, 4 of wich is your off hand weapons, is that the feats as i understand them, only give u the benefits for using 2 weapons. If you use multiple weapons u go to the bestiary and look up multi weapon fighting, and conclude that there is no improved version of that, so you cant get extra iterative attacks for all your hands.
But i do admit it is a bit grey area
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After looking over the rules (direct and implied) for the last couple of days now, this is my conclusion.
The general rule for multiple weapon attacks seems to be that you get one per arm. For most creatures, they only have two arms, so they only have two attacks (assuming low BAB). Gaining points of BAB gives additional iterative main-hand attacks. Taking the TWF feats gives you additional off-hand attacks.
Now, since the vast majority of creatures (including all those in the CRB) only have two arms, the rules are written to reflect that. There are instances, however, that seem to speak to the underlying basic assumption that each limb gets an attack. Things like the marilith or xill show creatures with multiple arms making multiple manufactured weapon attacks. One attack per limb, plus additional main-hand attacks from high BAB.
Indicative of this is also the text in the vestigial limb discovery for alchemists. It specifically calls out that the additional limb does not grant an additional attack. This may be just clarifying text, but it seems also that it is an exception to the standard rule.
Regarding armor spikes being off-hand attacks, go back to what I have deduced to be the general rule: one attack per arm. This rule is not "one attack per available weapon". So, your standard character with two limbs, gets one main-hand and one off-hand attack. If you choose to make this off-hand attack with armor spikes, it takes up the available off-hand attack. If a marilith is wearing spiked armor and, for some reason wants to attack with it, she must sacrifice one of her normal weapon attacks to do so. Essentially, she can attack with 5 longswords and armor spikes or 6 longswords. Strapping on spiked armor doesn't give her an extra limb to attack with, just an extra option for her available attacks.
Regarding eidolons, they can gain all the additional arms their evolution pool can earn them. This is because taking the "limbs" evolution explicitly does not come with a natural attack. If they did (even a puny secondary attack), then they would be limited by the Max Attacks column, even if those limbs are used to hold weapons. (I'm fairly certain that all "limbs(arms)" evolutions taken by eidolons in my game will come with a secondary 1d3 natural attack.)
That said, they still only gain a single additional attack per limb. There is no option to gain multiple, iterative off-hand attacks. Where Improved Two Weapon Fighting and Greater Two Weapon Fighting provide further iterative attacks for the off-hand weapon, there are no equivalents for the Multiweapon Fighting feat. The TWF feat and the Multiweapon Fighting feat each only reduce the penalties associated with the normal attack routine.
Note that, if it were not the general rule that you gain one attack per arm, then the Multiweapon Fighting feat would be entirely worthless. If you can only ever gain a single additional off-hand attack (without specific feats/abilities that create an exception), then the reference in Multiweapon Fighting to Two Weapon Fighting would mean that, despite having four dagger-wielding arms, you still only get two attacks. Since this seems to not be the intent of the feat (otherwise it wouldn't exist), the implication seems that Multiweapon Fighting reduces the penalty for each additional off-hand attack, regardless of the number of them.
If anyone has any specific rules quotes or insight that contradicts this, please mention them. The rules do seem overly obscure here and (as I'd like to build some monsters with multiple limbs), I'd like to be as clear as possible on how multiple limbs are intended to be ruled. Because of that, I'm going to FAQ the OP in hopes that someone with some authority at Paizo might chime in.
|
|
The guy wearing spiked everything and two swords should not gain more attacks just for wearing spiked things.
That's silly.
'cause then people will start adding spiked shoes, kneecaps, shoulders, helmets, and codpieces, giving them a total of 8 attacks, in addition to the 2 from the spiked gauntlets, 2 from weapons, and 1 from spiked armor.
Then this munchkin will get 13 attacks per round. I don't want that in a game. You don't want that in a game (I hope). Nobody wants that in a game. Then they'll try to get iterative attacks on top of the 13 attacks per round they're making.
Two Weapon Fighting is for fighting with two. Weapons.
If you've got more than two weapons, try taking multiattack or multiweapon fighting.
Personally, I think the two-weapon fighting chain is inelegant, too feat-intensive, and has requirements that are too high. But it is what we have.
|
|
If anyone has any specific rules quotes or insight that contradicts this, please mention them. The rules do seem overly obscure here and (as I'd like to build some monsters with multiple limbs), I'd like to be as clear as possible on how multiple limbs are intended to be ruled. Because of that, I'm going to FAQ the OP in hopes that someone with some authority at Paizo might chime in.
Yes, that's a good point - if people could FAQ the OP that may help on alerting the Paizo guys to the questions raised.
There's some good answers being presented here, but they all (mine included, of course) seem to come down to how we all happen to house rule this stuff for home games, due to the lack of solid game mechanics covering the issues. For example, I agree that there's a lot of evidence for the 'one off-hand attack per arm' ruling... but is that just because there are no monsters in the Bestiaries with non-arm, non-natural, off-hand attacks? The concept that an off-hand attack which happens to come from an extra arm trumps an off-hand attack from some other limb, even when such attacks are called out in the rules as off-hand attacks, would seem to be, at best, a double standard. On the other hand, the concept that you can just 'collect' extra off-hand attacks by adding them (either via stuff like blade boots, or by somehow adding extra arms to your character) seems to devalue much of the Improved and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting Feats.
Obviously the Summoner's eidolon is the biggest issue here... or rather, the thing which highlighted the issue. Here too, the design concept of limiting the eidolon's maximum number of natural attacks seems to be worthless if the eidolon can just add extra arms for more (and cheaper, as far as evolution points go) off-hand attacks without limit.
The different wording for the eidolon's limbs evolution and the Alchemist's vestigial arm discovery could be intended to make sure the Summoner is getting much more bang for his buck than the Alchemist (each being able to, essentially, add an extra arm for the cost of a Feat - Extra Discovery for the Alchemist and Extra Evolution for the Summoner, even though he'd need to collect two evolution points to cash-in for two extra arms), but it could equally mean the devolopers realised the issued caused by the 'loop hole' in the eidolon's limbs evolution text and decided to improve the wording when they came to phrasing the vestigial arm discovery in order to close the lop-hole, and that both features are actually meant to work in the same basic way. Since game balance is, usually, meant to be a design consideration, I'd tend towards thinking the latter... unless it's called out otherwise.
I'm not sure if this was pointed out or not, but you can make an unarmed strike with your feet, elbows, hands, head, etc.
Theoretically a normal human can attack with 4 limbs and a headbutt. That being said, if a level 1 human fighter did a "full attack" action they'd only get 2 attacks at most.
A dragon has a bite, claws, wings, and a tail, but those are natural attacks. The only way to gain more attacks with natural attacks is to literally gain more natural attacks. Claw, Bite, Gore, etc.
Natural attacks =/= TWF. You can't gain iterative or off-handed natural attacks.
Natural Attacks
Attacks made with natural weapons, such as claws and bites, are melee attacks that can be made against any creature within your reach (usually 5 feet). These attacks are made using your full attack bonus and deal an amount of damage that depends on their type (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). You do not receive additional natural attacks for a high base attack bonus. Instead, you receive additional attack rolls for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack (as noted by the race or ability that grants the attacks). If you possess only one natural attack (such as a bite—two claw attacks do not qualify), you add 1–1/2 times your Strength bonus on damage rolls made with that attack.Some natural attacks are denoted as secondary natural attacks, such as tails and wings. Attacks with secondary natural attacks are made using your base attack bonus minus 5. These attacks deal an amount of damage depending on their type, but you only add half your Strength modifier on damage rolls.
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. 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.
@Nigrescence
It is allowed to make them with your elbows and knees although you do have to go to the Monk's listing of Unarmed Strike to see that.
However, there is nothing mechanically different about using an elbow or knee vs a fist.
Unarmed Strikes are not considered "natural attacks", you can see that they are not listed as attack forms under statblocks for humans. The reason a dragon has so many natural attacks is because it does not gain iterative attacks in any way. This compensates the dragon for being a high HD creature.
So a full attacking human would not get kicks or a headbutt with a full attack action. They have no Fist or Kick attacks listed. Pointing out that you'd allow it, has no bearing on the RAW. Rather, in the case of your two-handed weapon wielding fighter, they'd use TWF to gain the extra off-hand attack (unarmed strike). Even if they had Improved Unarmed Strike.
|
So my summoner doesn't need GM permission to take Quicken Spell-Like Ability?
** spoiler omitted **
That is going to be fun.
Yes, he can take it. That does not make it a good choice, though. Summon Monster II isn't very impressive for a 12th level character, even as a swift action.
|
|
Interesting...
... The section on Natural Attacks (quoted by Stynkk above) does seem to imply one off-hand attack per limb... including legs and head, if that's what the creature is using (so not 'arms only'). That makes items like blade boots, and the Improved Unarmed Strike Feat, particularly tempting - especially for characters who leverage stuff like Sneak Attack to do their damage. The text also says you make all such attacks as if TWF - so it suggests that the TWF Feat should cover all your off-hand attacks anyway (the Multiweapon Fighting Feat simply being a little easier for 3+ armed creatures to qualify for). Even if you can't get the extra reduction in penalties from the Feat, then you lose nothing by trying for the extra attacks anyway... so why don't Rogues and people abuse this more often? Even at -4 to-hit it's a case of 'why not have a go' with a couple of kicks and a headbutt, if you're full-attacking anyway...
I wonder if any of this stuff will be covered in Ultimate Combat..?
The text also says you make all such attacks as if TWF - so it suggests that the TWF Feat should cover all your off-hand attacks anyway (the Multiweapon Fighting Feat simply being a little easier for 3+ armed creatures to qualify for). Even if you can't get the extra reduction in penalties from the Feat, then you lose nothing by trying for the extra attacks anyway... so why don't Rogues and people abuse this more often? Even at -4 to-hit it's a case of 'why not have a go' with a couple of kicks and a headbutt, if you're full-attacking anyway...
giving a human IUS and full attacking does not give you 5 attacks, just like putting blades on your boots does not give you extra attacks. Nor does it give you natural attacks. When you TWF (as in the Full Round action) you only get ONE extra attack unless you have more of the feat chain.
When you use a manufactured weapon and natual attacks, such as a bite and claw you can combine them together because you had pre-existing natural attacks
Humans are not monsters, they don't get natural attacks unless through a feat or something else.
A sorcerer could use 2 claws and Improved Unarmed Strike with TWF, to get 4 total attacks (at a rediculously low modifier), or 2 attacks if they did not have their claws out.