Ok, so my party's about to have another adventuring band attack them to save the prisoner they've got (misinformation is fun!), and the leader of that band is a barbarian with Fiend and Elemental totem powers.
When raging, the barbarian gains a bite attack for d4 and a gore attack for d8, plus elemental rage (+1d6). He's using a greataxe and has iterative attacks.
From what I can see of the rules, you make your primary (weapon) attacks without penalty, but then take a -5 on secondaries, is that right? If so, his full attack sequence would be this:
+1 Greataxe: +17/+12 (1d12+11) (x3) + 1d6 elemental damage and
Bite: +11 (1d4+3) + 1d6 elemental damage and
Gore: +11 (1d8+3) + 1d6 elemental damage
Now his BAB is 9 and he's at +7 Str raging. I'm not including Power Attack in this at the moment.
I have to say that seems pretty darned ugly. Especially if he gets Enlarged.
a barbarian with Fiend and Elemental totem powers.
Your math looks correct, but a barbarian cannot select from more than one group of totem rage powers.
a barbarian with Fiend and Elemental totem powers.Your math looks correct, but a barbarian cannot select from more than one group of totem rage powers.
Huh, how did I miss that, it's right there in easy-to-see text.
[Apparently I'm getting PC-Gen lazy] Well, I guess we'll lose the gore and keep the 3 elemental-boosted attacks. :)
Wait, though, looking again -- elemental rage powers are shown as "Elemental Rage" and not "Elemental Totem", so this should still be a valid build.
Hmm... from what I read under 'Combat - Natural attacks', your base weapon attack pattern is going to take some penalty.
All attacks with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes are made as if you were two-weapon fighting
Okay, the natural attacks are light, but even if using the Two Weapon Fighting feat (which, I admit, looks a tad odd when employed by someone wielding a Greataxe), this takes the Greataxe pattern down to +15/+10.
Hmm... from what I read under 'Combat - Natural attacks', your base weapon attack pattern is going to take some penalty.
All attacks with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes are made as if you were two-weapon fightingOkay, the natural attacks are light, but even if using the Two Weapon Fighting feat (which, I admit, looks a tad odd when employed by someone wielding a Greataxe), this takes the Greataxe pattern down to +15/+10.
See, that's what I'm wondering. The -5 on the secondary attacks made sense, but the total lack of penalty on the greataxe seemed weird.
The PRD says this:
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.
Which doesn't say anything about penalizing the primary attack -- and, fo that matter, looking at the lycanthrope entry, the weapon attack doesn't suffer for the addition of the bite - hence the whole "Is this right?" bit.
All references to two weapon fighting under the natural attack rules are erronious. The correct rules are in the bestiary, and your weapon attacks do not take ANY penalties for using natural weapons in addition to them. Your primary attacks (which are not dedicated to wielding weapons, such as claws on your hands) are simply made as secondary attacks instead of primary.
Thanks, Krispy. That's what I thought.
Also, I assume the barbarian can't take Multiattack to reduce the penalty to -2 because he only has 2 natural attacks (bite and gore) and thereby doesn't qualify...
...or is there a rule about not qualifying for feats that only apply when you're raging?
Thanks, Krispy. That's what I thought.
Also, I assume the barbarian can't take Multiattack to reduce the penalty to -2 because he only has 2 natural attacks (bite and gore) and thereby doesn't qualify...
...or is there a rule about not qualifying for feats that only apply when you're raging?
I had thought there was some discussion recently about whether or not 'temporary' effects such as 'only while raging' counted or not. I'm not personally sure.
Regardless, its up to your GM: multiattack is a monster feat and therefore should already require GM permission to take.
I had thought there was some discussion recently about whether or not 'temporary' effects such as 'only while raging' counted or not. I'm not personally sure.
Regardless, its up to your GM: multiattack is a monster feat and therefore should already require GM permission to take.
Yes, well, I'll grant myself permission to take anything that's rules-legal. ;)
I was just wondering about the temporary qualification -- again, it's moot in this case because Multiattack requires 3 natural attacks and the character only has 2 -- it was more a "hey, what is the rule about..." sort of question.
|
I had thought there was some discussion recently about whether or not 'temporary' effects such as 'only while raging' counted or not. I'm not personally sure.
Regardless, its up to your GM: multiattack is a monster feat and therefore should already require GM permission to take.
Yes, well, I'll grant myself permission to take anything that's rules-legal. ;)
I was just wondering about the temporary qualification -- again, it's moot in this case because Multiattack requires 3 natural attacks and the character only has 2 -- it was more a "hey, what is the rule about..." sort of question.
Very true, however if you changed him into a changeling instead then you'd have 2 natural claw attacks and would qualify for the feat with next to no changes to the build, (he'd lose 1hp per level and have a higher will save but that's it) and he'd have a great set of backup weapons for when the party takes his axe away.
The feat states you have to have 3 or more natural attacks, never says you need to use em.
I had thought there was some discussion recently about whether or not 'temporary' effects such as 'only while raging' counted or not. I'm not personally sure.
Regardless, its up to your GM: multiattack is a monster feat and therefore should already require GM permission to take.
Yes, well, I'll grant myself permission to take anything that's rules-legal. ;)
I was just wondering about the temporary qualification -- again, it's moot in this case because Multiattack requires 3 natural attacks and the character only has 2 -- it was more a "hey, what is the rule about..." sort of question.
Very true, however if you changed him into a changeling instead then you'd have 2 natural claw attacks and would qualify for the feat with next to no changes to the build, (he'd lose 1hp per level and have a higher will save but that's it) and he'd have a great set of backup weapons for when the party takes his axe away.
The feat states you have to have 3 or more natural attacks, never says you need to use em.
Also, he would be a she.
...
Also, one of the changeling heritage thingies is +1 melee damage rolls, which is just swell for a barbarian, right? :)
I personally am a huge fan of changelings for crazy natural attack builds :)
|
|
I had thought there was some discussion recently about whether or not 'temporary' effects such as 'only while raging' counted or not. I'm not personally sure.
Regardless, its up to your GM: multiattack is a monster feat and therefore should already require GM permission to take.
Yes, well, I'll grant myself permission to take anything that's rules-legal. ;)
I was just wondering about the temporary qualification -- again, it's moot in this case because Multiattack requires 3 natural attacks and the character only has 2 -- it was more a "hey, what is the rule about..." sort of question.
Very true, however if you changed him into a changeling instead then you'd have 2 natural claw attacks and would qualify for the feat with next to no changes to the build, (he'd lose 1hp per level and have a higher will save but that's it) and he'd have a great set of backup weapons for when the party takes his axe away.
The feat states you have to have 3 or more natural attacks, never says you need to use em.
Also, he would be a she.
...
Also, one of the changeling heritage thingies is +1 melee damage rolls, which is just swell for a barbarian, right? :)
I personally am a huge fan of changelings for crazy natural attack builds :)
It doesn't HAVE to be a she, just because male changeling babes are killed at birth doesn't mean they all have to be. The fact that they state the kill the males means that they happen, so play one if you want.
I love the changeling race just wish they had different stat modifiers. +'s to Wis and Cha with a neg to con kinda sucks for a melee focused character in anything less than a 20pt buy.