"Tusked" racial trait vs. "Razortusk" feat


Rules Questions

Scarab Sages

Am I missing something?

Step 1: Take a Half-Orc character.

Step 2A: Take the "Additional Traits" feat.
OR
Step 2B: Take the "Razortusk" feat.

Step 3A: Take the "Tusked" trait as one of your two traits. Gain a bite attack that does 1d4 damage. Take any other trait as your second trait.
OR
Step 3B: Get a bite attack that does 1d4 damage.

Is there any reason to take Razortusk when you can just do the A options?

Tusked Trait - Orcs of Golarion

Quote:
Tusked: Huge, sharp tusks bulge from your mouth, and you receive a bite attack (1d4 damage for Medium characters). If used as part of a full attack action, the bite attack is made at your full base attack bonus –5.

Razortusk - Advanced Player's Guide

Quote:

Your powerful jaws and steely teeth are deadly enough to give you a bite attack.

Prerequisite: Half-orc.
Benefit: You can make a bite attack for 1d4 points of damage, plus your Strength modifier. You're considered proficient in this attack and can apply feats or effects appropriate to natural attacks to it. If used as part of a full attack action, the bite is considered a secondary attack and is made at your full base attack bonus –5, and adds half your Strength modifier to damage.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Dev's have answered this before. This is a situation where they came at the same situation from multiple angles. If your GM allows traits, then you should take the trait. If your GM doesn't use traits, you should take the feat.

Yes they are the same mechanically.

Not every GM allows traits though, so there is a way to give your half-orc a bite attack even if he doesn't allow traits.


Don't forget about the third option:

Toothy Alternative Racial Trait - APG

Quote:
Toothy: Some Half-orcs’ vestigial tusks are massive and sharp, granting a bite attack. This is a primary natural attack that deals 1d4 points of piercing damage. This racial trait replaces the orc ferocity racial trait.

RAW, this is actually better than Razortusk, since you add STR x 1½.

Natural Attack Universal Monster Rules wrote:
Most creatures possess one or more natural attacks (attacks made without a weapon). These attacks fall into one of two categories, primary and secondary attacks. Primary attacks are made using the creature’s full base attack bonus and add the creature’s full Strength bonus on damage rolls. Secondary attacks are made using the creature’s base attack bonus –5 and add only 1/2 the creature’s Strength bonus on damage rolls. 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. This increase does not apply if the creature has multiple attacks but only takes one. If a creature has only one type of attack, but has multiple attacks per round, that attack is treated as a primary attack, regardless of its type.


yeah but if you use the bite with weapon attacks, it becomes a secondary natural attack and is at -5 to hit and only adds 1/2 str mod to damage


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Note that devs have said that all 'bites' should follow the rules in Bestiary and Bestiary II. That is, they do specific amount as natural attack or secondary attack with weapon attacks based on size. So theoretically, all 3 methods of giving the half-orc a bite should be exactly the same. Unfortunately, they haven't added that to the FAQ yet. Same applies to the Animal Fury barbarian rage power.


thepuregamer wrote:
yeah but if you use the bite with weapon attacks, it becomes a secondary natural attack and is at -5 to hit and only adds 1/2 str mod to damage

True, but in any case, a natural weapon is very handy in a number of different situations. For instance as a back-up for a an archer, a pole-arm fighter or a grappler. Or just to make sure you always threaten adjacent squares, and can take AoO's or provide flank.

@mdt - I was not aware of that, but it makes sense that all options should provide similar benefits.


JaceDK wrote:
True, but in any case, a natural weapon is very handy in a number of different situations. For instance as a back-up for a an archer, a pole-arm fighter or a grappler. Or just to make sure you always threaten adjacent squares, and can take AoO's or provide flank.

Plus, it's always available to a grappler. :)

Dark Archive

mdt wrote:

Note that devs have said that all 'bites' should follow the rules in Bestiary and Bestiary II. That is, they do specific amount as natural attack or secondary attack with weapon attacks based on size. So theoretically, all 3 methods of giving the half-orc a bite should be exactly the same. Unfortunately, they haven't added that to the FAQ yet. Same applies to the Animal Fury barbarian rage power.

If that is true then all of these Bite attacks should be doing 1D6 damage instead of D4 since the rules in the Beastiary put medium sized bite attacks at that. Add to that every other method in the game for getting Bite and Claw attacks place them at a D6 as well (Feral Mutagen, Barbs totems and animal fury, etc.)

I've been wanting some clarification on that for a while.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Mathwei ap Niall wrote:


Add to that every other method in the game for getting Bite and Claw attacks place them at a D6 as well (Feral Mutagen, Barbs totems and animal fury, etc.)

Actually, Medium Claws are 1d4, not 1d6.


Yup, some FAQ clarification would be nice. But honestly, the damage dice is not that big of a deal. Once you pile on bonuses from STR and possibly Power Attack, the dmg die is just gravy. And if you drop Enlarge Person and Imp. Natural Attack into the mix, you can suddenly chew some quite nasty chunks off of things.

Dark Archive

mdt wrote:
Mathwei ap Niall wrote:


Add to that every other method in the game for getting Bite and Claw attacks place them at a D6 as well (Feral Mutagen, Barbs totems and animal fury, etc.)
Actually, Medium Claws are 1d4, not 1d6.

On the Beastiary charts yes they are, but for Beast Totem Barbarians and Feral Mutagen Alchemists they are a D6.

Bites are supposed to be a D6 but Alchemists get it at a D8, Rangers and Barbarians get it at a D4. Barbarians also get a Gore at D8 but the chart states it should be a D6.

This is where my confusion comes from.

Scarab Sages

Actually, the bites and claws being whatever damage the book says (d4 for the bite in this case) shouldn't change even with the table in the Bestiary. Note the bottom of the table:
"* Individual creatures vary from this value as appropriate."


JaceDK wrote:
Yup, some FAQ clarification would be nice. But honestly, the damage dice is not that big of a deal. Once you pile on bonuses from STR and possibly Power Attack, the dmg die is just gravy. And if you drop Enlarge Person and Imp. Natural Attack into the mix, you can suddenly chew some quite nasty chunks off of things.

Why stop there? Look at Strongjaw in the APG.

1d4 toothy
1d6 INA
1d8 Enlarge orc
2d8 Strong jaw

Ow.

Dark Archive

Poor Wandering One wrote:
JaceDK wrote:
Yup, some FAQ clarification would be nice. But honestly, the damage dice is not that big of a deal. Once you pile on bonuses from STR and possibly Power Attack, the dmg die is just gravy. And if you drop Enlarge Person and Imp. Natural Attack into the mix, you can suddenly chew some quite nasty chunks off of things.

Why stop there? Look at Strongjaw in the APG.

1d4 toothy
1d6 INA
1d8 Enlarge orc
2d8 Strong jaw

Ow.

well for a trait, a feat, and 2 spells, i hope you deal ok damage like that.

heirloom weapon falcata-d8 19-20x3
improved crit d8-17-20x3
enlarge-d10 17-20x3
lead blades-2d8 17-20 x3

More ow.


Name Violation wrote:


More ow.

Granted, but it is still not to shabby for a secondary natural attack.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / "Tusked" racial trait vs. "Razortusk" feat All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.