Pleast take a look at the Sahuagin in Bestiary 1. How many attacks does he get per turn? I am still trying to figure out what some monsters attack options are in a turn. I know that any creature that uses more than one attack must take a full round action to do so. But what exactly those options are? Does a Lion get 1 bite and 2 claws per full round attack?
Standard Action:
1 Trident or 1 Claw or 1 Bite
Full Round Action:
1 Trident and 1 Bite - total 2 attacks
OR
2 Claws and 1 Bite - total 3 attacks
Melee trident +4 (1d8+3), bite –1 (1d4+1) or 2 claws +4 (1d4+2), bite +4 (1d4+2)
This is the Melee stat block of the Sahuagin. I always assumed that the comma's seperated your different attack options, however why would the bite appear twice but both with different modifiers?
|
Pleast take a look at the Sahuagin in Bestiary 1. How many attacks does he get per turn? I am still trying to figure out what some monsters attack options are in a turn. I know that any creature that uses more than one attack must take a full round action to do so. But what exactly those options are? Does a Lion get 1 bite and 2 claws per full round attack?
A Sahuagin has a bite and 2 claws as natural attacks. It can also use weapons. If using only natural attacks, the bite and the 2 claws are all primary attacks. If it uses weapons, the hands required for the weapons reduce the number of claw attacks available, and all natural attacks become secondary. The damage given can change based upon whether the weapon attacks use 1 hand or 2 hands, and whether natural attacks are primary or secondary.
The stat block shown is an example, but isn't necessarily the only example available. In this case, they show the trident being used with two hands; it isn't the only way to use it. A Sahuagin carrying a trident and a heavy crossbow could make any of the following, based on BAB +2, Str 14, Dex 13, no relevant feats; options 1, 2, and 4 are in the monster listing:
Melee only
Option 1) Melee 2 claws +4 (1d4+2), bite +4 (1d4+2) (3 attacks total)
Option 2) Melee trident +4 (1d8+3), bite –1 (1d4+1) (2 attacks, using the trident with two hands)
Option 3) Melee trident +4 (1d8+2), bite –1 (1d4+1), claw -1 (1d4+1) (3 attacks, using the trident with one hand)
Ranged only
Option 4) Ranged heavy crossbow +3 (1d10/19–20) (fires just the crossbow at range)
Option 5) Ranged trident +3 (1d8+2) (throws just the trident at range)
Mixed Melee and Ranged
Option 6) Ranged trident +3 (1d8+2), melee bite -1 (1d4+1), claw -1 (1d4+1) (throws the trident and uses melee bite and claw on adjacent; provokes AoO for the ranged attack)
Option 7) Ranged heavy crossbow +3 (1d10/19-20), melee bite -1 (1d4+1) (fires the crossbow with two hands, so no claws available; bites adjacent; provokes AoO for the ranged attack).
There are other obscure options that would involve using the crossbow with one hand to fire.
Melee trident +4 (1d8+3), bite –1 (1d4+1) or 2 claws +4 (1d4+2), bite +4 (1d4+2)
This is the Melee stat block of the Sahuagin. I always assumed that the comma's seperated your different attack options, however why would the bite appear twice but both with different modifiers?
The comma separates the different attacks within a single sequence. The or separates the options regarding which sequences can be used.
Melee 2 arms +26 (2d6+10/19–20 plus grab), 8 tentacles +24 (1d8+5 plus grab), bite +26 (2d8+10)
So for example the Kraken gets 11 attacks per turn if it uses Full Round Action?
In this case, they show the trident being used with two hands; it isn't the only way to use it. A Sahuagin carrying a trident and a heavy crossbow could make any of the following, based on BAB +2, Str 14, Dex 13, no relevant feats; options 1, 2, and 4 are in the monster listing:
If this is the case then the sequence shouldn't allow the claws to be used as they are holding the trident...right?
|
|
If this is the case then the sequence shouldn't allow the claws to be used as they are holding the trident...right?
In this case, they show the trident being used with two hands; it isn't the only way to use it. A Sahuagin carrying a trident and a heavy crossbow could make any of the following, based on BAB +2, Str 14, Dex 13, no relevant feats; options 1, 2, and 4 are in the monster listing:
My option 2 is the same as the option from the Bestiary. This option is using the trident with two hands, so the claws don't get used. My option 3 is using the trident 1-handed, leaving a claw available for an additional attack.
My option 3 is using the trident 1-handed, leaving a claw available for an additional attack.
Does your Option 3 take into account the two weapon fighting rules?
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.
Per the Universal Monster Rule above, shouldn't all of the Sahuagin Natural Attacks be at -5 when using the Trident? If that is the case the stat blocks are incorrect.
My option 3 is using the trident 1-handed, leaving a claw available for an additional attack.Does your Option 3 take into account the two weapon fighting rules?
TWF is not needed. Any natural attack limb that can wield a weapon, but does not can be used without needing it. One short one limb holding a manufactured weapon does not prevent the other one from being used.
When he said additional attack he was making a comparison to the book using the two-handed attack with the trident instead of using one hand. He was not saying additional attack in the sense that TWF gives one, which only applies to additional attacks from BAB with regard to manufactured weapons.|
|
My option 3 is using the trident 1-handed, leaving a claw available for an additional attack.Does your Option 3 take into account the two weapon fighting rules?
Two weapon fighting only comes into consideration when using more than one manufactured weapon and if using it to gain more attacks than due to BAB. Attacking with a single manufactured weapon and multiple natural attacks will never generate two weapon fighting penalties. The effect of using a manufactured weapon along with natural weapons is that the natural weapons all become secondary. This is taken into account, yes.
Note, whether two weapon fighting penalties come into effect only if gaining additional attacks from the additional weapon tends to be a subject of debate and best for another thread. In any case, it is moot for this situation unless he is using both the crossbow and trident in the same attack sequence, which I intentionally left out.
My option 3 is using the trident 1-handed, leaving a claw available for an additional attack.Does your Option 3 take into account the two weapon fighting rules?TWF is not needed. Any natural attack limb that can wield a weapon, but does not can be used without needing it. One short one limb holding a manufactured weapon does not prevent the other one from being used.
When he said additional attack he was making a comparison to the book using the two-handed attack with the trident instead of using one hand. He was not saying additional attack in the sense that TWF gives one, which only applies to additional attacks from BAB with regard to manufactured weapons.
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.
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.
Per the Universal Monster Rule above, shouldn't all of the Sahuagin Natural Attacks be at -5 when using the Trident? If that is the case the stat blocks are incorrect.
The book is saying that if you use the manufactured weapon and a natural attack in the same round the natural attacks all suffer a -5 which is shown in the stat block below.
Melee trident +4 (1d8+3), bite –1 (1d4+1)
If you only use the natural attack then you don't suffer the -5.
There are other monsters in the book that can be used to support this.
Melee trident +4 (1d8+3), bite –1 (1d4+1)
If you only use the natural attack then you don't suffer the -5.
There are other monsters in the book that can be used to support this.
You are correct. Misread the stats for a second. However I think TWF is not calculated into the Trident stats in that block if he attacks with it and the bite. The bite would be considered a light weapon for the purpose of determining TWF penalties.
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.My option 3 is using the trident 1-handed, leaving a claw available for an additional attack.Does your Option 3 take into account the two weapon fighting rules?TWF is not needed. Any natural attack limb that can wield a weapon, but does not can be used without needing it. One short one limb holding a manufactured weapon does not prevent the other one from being used.
When he said additional attack he was making a comparison to the book using the two-handed attack with the trident instead of using one hand. He was not saying additional attack in the sense that TWF gives one, which only applies to additional attacks from BAB with regard to manufactured weapons.
Your natural attacks are never affected by TWF. Multiattack refers to monsters with primary and secondary attacks. An example would be a monster with a bite attack and several tentacle attacks.
The bite is a primary attack while tentacles are secondary attacks so that feat would apply.In this specific example with the Sahuagin there are no true secondary natural attacks. Claws and bites are primary, but they are treated as secondary for the purpose of attack rules if you use the weapons, which is where the -5 penalty comes in.
In short multiattack is for natural weapons, and TWF is for manufactured weapons which we know go off of BAB, and only comes into play when you get an additional manufactured attack. If the Sahuagin with a BAB of only 2 wanted to wield 2 short swords and reduce the penalty he would need TWF. If he wields one short sword and used the claw for the other hand no TWF is needed.
Your natural attacks are never affected by TWF. Multiattack refers to monsters with primary and secondary attacks. An example would be a monster with a bite attack and several tentacle attacks.
The bite is a primary attack while tentacles are secondary attacks so that feat would apply.
In this specific example with the Sahuagin there are no true secondary natural attacks. Claws and bites are primary, but they are treated as secondary for the purpose...
What does this part of the rule mean:
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.
You are correct. Misread the stats for a second. However I think TWF is not calculated into the Trident stats in that block if he attacks with it and the bite. The bite would be considered a light weapon for the purpose of determining TWF penalties.Melee trident +4 (1d8+3), bite –1 (1d4+1)
If you only use the natural attack then you don't suffer the -5.
There are other monsters in the book that can be used to support this.
Not at all the TWF penalty only applies to additional attacks made outside of BAB. Natural weapons ignore BAB. They depend only on the number of natural attacks availible to the creature.
The monster is not getting an extra attack in.
PRD: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)
claw claw bite(never inhibited) is the attack progression with no natural weapon for the monster we are using.
If you use a weapon we have.
Manufactured weapon-Trident(taking the place of one claw)
2nd claw not holding a weapon
Bite-never inhibited
As you can see no extra attacks have been given out.
You are correct. Misread the stats for a second. However I think TWF is not calculated into the Trident stats in that block if he attacks with it and the bite. The bite would be considered a light weapon for the purpose of determining TWF penalties.Melee trident +4 (1d8+3), bite –1 (1d4+1)
If you only use the natural attack then you don't suffer the -5.
There are other monsters in the book that can be used to support this.
Not at all the TWF penalty only applies to additional attacks made outside of BAB. Natural weapons ignore BAB. They depend only on the number of natural attacks availible to the creature.
The monster is not getting an extra attack in.
PRD: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)
claw claw bite(never inhibited) is the attack progression with no natural weapon for the monster we are using.
If you use a weapon we have.
Manufactured weapon-Trident(taking the place of one claw)
2nd claw not holding a weapon
Bite-never inhibitedAs you can see no extra attacks have been given out.
I don't believe you are interpreting the rules correctly, it clearly states that if you replace a natural attack with a weapon attack you must consider two weapon fighting penalties and use the natural attack as a light weapon for calculation purposes. That is very clearly stated in the Core Rulebook.
Your natural attacks are never affected by TWF. Multiattack refers to monsters with primary and secondary attacks. An example would be a monster with a bite attack and several tentacle attacks.
The bite is a primary attack while tentacles are secondary attacks so that feat would apply.
In this specific example with the Sahuagin there are no true secondary natural attacks. Claws and bites are primary, but they are treated as secondary for the purpose...What does this part of the rule mean:
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.
It means if you want to drop the penalty from -5 to -2 then you have to take one of those feats, but the attack is still available.
I do remember there being some discussion about this, and I don't know if that is the corrected version or something they still have to get around to.
I don't believe you are interpreting the rules correctly, it clearly states that if you replace a natural attack with a weapon attack you must consider two weapon fighting penalties and use the natural attack as a light weapon for calculation purposes. That is very clearly stated in the Core Rulebook.You are correct. Misread the stats for a second. However I think TWF is not calculated into the Trident stats in that block if he attacks with it and the bite. The bite would be considered a light weapon for the purpose of determining TWF penalties.Melee trident +4 (1d8+3), bite –1 (1d4+1)
If you only use the natural attack then you don't suffer the -5.
There are other monsters in the book that can be used to support this.
Not at all the TWF penalty only applies to additional attacks made outside of BAB. Natural weapons ignore BAB. They depend only on the number of natural attacks availible to the creature.
The monster is not getting an extra attack in.
PRD: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)
claw claw bite(never inhibited) is the attack progression with no natural weapon for the monster we are using.
If you use a weapon we have.
Manufactured weapon-Trident(taking the place of one claw)
2nd claw not holding a weapon
Bite-never inhibitedAs you can see no extra attacks have been given out.
Your confusion comes from the fact that there are two contradictory sections of the rules that deal with this.
First there is the section from the core rule book you quoted:
THE BOLDED PART IS INCORRECT, IT IS A VESTIGIAL PIECE OF 3.5's RULES.
The correct section of the rules for natural and manufactured weapons is:
This rule is from the universal monster rules from the bestiary. Paizo developers have stated that this is the correct interpretation. The previous ruling needs to be remove. You can find the universal monster rules here
The devs comment/clarification is here.
I don't believe you are interpreting the rules correctly, it clearly states that if you replace a natural attack with a weapon attack you must consider two weapon fighting penalties and use the natural attack as a light weapon for calculation purposes. That is very clearly stated in the Core Rulebook.
How am I not stating the rules correctly? The book never says you lose a natural attack. The bite is not affected by BAB, nor is it holding a weapon. You keep the bite.
The progression using all the attack without any feats to mitigate the penalty is Melee trident +4 (1d8+3), bite –1 (1d4+2) claw -1 (1d4+2).
PRD: 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).
The trident is the primary attack source and since it is BAB based you only get one trident attack. The additional attacks come from the monster's natural attacks per the above paragraph. Since the trident takes up one claw one claw attack is lost. Note that no monster in the bestiary will have its natural attacks limited by BAB. Since the bite is not limited by BAB and it is not wielding a weapon there is no way to lost it. BAB determines how many attacks you get with a manufactured weapon, not how many attacks you get. If BAB worked on the number of natural attacks then the kraken would lose a lot of attacks.
I don't believe you are interpreting the rules correctly, it clearly states that if you replace a natural attack with a weapon attack you must consider two weapon fighting penalties and use the natural attack as a light weapon for calculation purposes. That is very clearly stated in the Core Rulebook.
How am I not stating the rules correctly? The book never says you lose a natural attack. The bite is not affected by BAB, nor is it holding a weapon. You keep the bite.
The progression using all the attack without any feats to mitigate the penalty is Melee trident +4 (1d8+3), bite –1 (1d4+2) claw -1 (1d4+2).
PRD: 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).
The trident is the primary attack source and since it is BAB based you only get one trident attack. The additional attacks come from the monster's natural attacks per the above paragraph. Since the trident takes up one claw one claw attack is lost. Note that no monster in the bestiary will have its natural attacks limited by BAB. Since the bite is not limited by BAB and it is not wielding a weapon there is no way to lost it. BAB determines how many attacks you get with a manufactured weapon, not how many attacks you get. If BAB worked on the number of natural attacks then the kraken would lose a lot of attacks.
Wraith, you guys aren't talking about the same part of the rules. He believes there should be additional TWF penalties because the core rulebook incorrectly states there should be; however, you are basing your discussion on the corrected natural attack rules from the bestiary.
I don't believe you are interpreting the rules correctly, it clearly states that if you replace a natural attack with a weapon attack you must consider two weapon fighting penalties and use the natural attack as a light weapon for calculation purposes. That is very clearly stated in the Core Rulebook.You are correct. Misread the stats for a second. However I think TWF is not calculated into the Trident stats in that block if he attacks with it and the bite. The bite would be considered a light weapon for the purpose of determining TWF penalties.Melee trident +4 (1d8+3), bite –1 (1d4+1)
If you only use the natural attack then you don't suffer the -5.
There are other monsters in the book that can be used to support this.
Not at all the TWF penalty only applies to additional attacks made outside of BAB. Natural weapons ignore BAB. They depend only on the number of natural attacks availible to the creature.
The monster is not getting an extra attack in.
PRD: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)
claw claw bite(never inhibited) is the attack progression with no natural weapon for the monster we are using.
If you use a weapon we have.
Manufactured weapon-Trident(taking the place of one claw)
2nd claw not holding a weapon
Bite-never inhibitedAs you can see no extra attacks have been given out.
Your confusion comes from the fact that there are two contradictory sections of the rules that deal with this.
First there is the section from the core rule book you quoted:
** spoiler omitted **...
Thanks. I was searching for that on these boards, but I could not find it. I remembered there being an error, but I could not recall exactly what the error was.
Thanks. I was searching for that on these boards, but I could not find it. I remembered there being an error, but I could not recall exactly what...
No problem, I became very familiar with the natural attack rules when I played a feral mutagen alchemist.
Your confusion comes from the fact that there are two contradictory sections of the rules that deal with this.
Your link to the FAQ is not an official Paizo FAQ. Why hasn't this been addressed in one of the Official FAQs?
Your link to the FAQ is not an official Paizo FAQ. Why hasn't this been addressed in one of the Official FAQs?Your confusion comes from the fact that there are two contradictory sections of the rules that deal with this.
I have no clue why it has not been officially addressed to this date. I imagine they just keep forgetting to make an official correction; however, James Jacobs has issued the unofficial response. Next to Jason, James's word is as close to god as you can get around here. Everyone on these boards and all of the Pathfinder writers accept and use this interpretation (in the bestiaries and adventure paths). So you can consider it golden.
It's pretty damn simple with this rule too: If they use a manufactured weapon alongside a natural attack, apply a -5 penalty to all natural attacks (unless they have the multi-attack feat as well).
Your link to the FAQ is not an official Paizo FAQ. Why hasn't this been addressed in one of the Official FAQs?Your confusion comes from the fact that there are two contradictory sections of the rules that deal with this.
I have no clue why it has not been officially addressed to this date. I imagine they just keep forgetting to make an official correction; however, James Jacobs has issued the unofficial response. Next to Jason, James's word is as close to god as you can get around here. Everyone on these boards and all of the Pathfinder writers accept and use this interpretation (in the bestiaries and adventure paths). So you can consider it golden.
It's pretty damn simple with this rule too: If they use a manufactured weapon alongside a natural attack, apply a -5 penalty to all natural attacks (unless they have the multi-attack feat as well).
I think this is a HUGE deal as it is a rule in the Core Rulebook that is incorrect. Why hasn't this been cleaned up in one of the new printings?? This isn't confusion over interpretation, this is an OUTRIGHT RULE that is not supposed to be in there. WOW!
|
|
Your link to the FAQ is not an official Paizo FAQ. Why hasn't this been addressed in one of the Official FAQs?Your confusion comes from the fact that there are two contradictory sections of the rules that deal with this.
I've added it to the "Needs FAQ/Errata" thread.
Edit: Added Link.
Your link to the FAQ is not an official Paizo FAQ. Why hasn't this been addressed in one of the Official FAQs?Your confusion comes from the fact that there are two contradictory sections of the rules that deal with this.
That site normally has errata up before Paizo does, and they also post developer responses there when they answer questions on the board. They also have links back to this board.
Here is a link back to this site, which is the original source.
I think this is a HUGE deal as it is a rule in the Core Rulebook that is incorrect. Why hasn't this been cleaned up in one of the new printings?? This isn't confusion over interpretation, this is an OUTRIGHT RULE that is not supposed to be in there. WOW!Your link to the FAQ is not an official Paizo FAQ. Why hasn't this been addressed in one of the Official FAQs?Your confusion comes from the fact that there are two contradictory sections of the rules that deal with this.
I have no clue why it has not been officially addressed to this date. I imagine they just keep forgetting to make an official correction; however, James Jacobs has issued the unofficial response. Next to Jason, James's word is as close to god as you can get around here. Everyone on these boards and all of the Pathfinder writers accept and use this interpretation (in the bestiaries and adventure paths). So you can consider it golden.
It's pretty damn simple with this rule too: If they use a manufactured weapon alongside a natural attack, apply a -5 penalty to all natural attacks (unless they have the multi-attack feat as well).
There are a few. One rule says you can spellcraft SLA's and another area in the corebook says you can't.
There are a few. One rule says you can spellcraft SLA's and another area in the corebook says you can't.
What is SLA?
I've added it to the "Needs FAQ/Errata" thread.
Where is that thread at?
|
|
I think this is a HUGE deal as it is a rule in the Core Rulebook that is incorrect. Why hasn't this been cleaned up in one of the new printings?? This isn't confusion over interpretation, this is an OUTRIGHT RULE that is not supposed to be in there. WOW!
These things happen. You can either expend energy trying to make a change, or you can expend energy expressing outrage. The choice is yours. :)
There are a few. One rule says you can spellcraft SLA's and another area in the corebook says you can't.What is SLA?
spell-like ability
I think this is a HUGE deal as it is a rule in the Core Rulebook that is incorrect. Why hasn't this been cleaned up in one of the new printings?? This isn't confusion over interpretation, this is an OUTRIGHT RULE that is not supposed to be in there. WOW!These things happen. You can either expend energy trying to make a change, or you can expend energy expressing outrage. The choice is yours. :)
We are on the 4th printing of the Core Rulebook and yes it is pretty Outrageous that conflicting rules have not been cleaned up by now. Those all should have been fixed in the 2nd printing. Less clear rules might take a bit to sort out, but outright contradicting rules should have been addressed right away. Why haven't they?
We are on the 4th printing of the Core Rulebook and yes it is pretty Outrageous that conflicting rules have not been cleaned up by now. Those all should have been fixed in the 2nd printing. Less clear rules might take a bit to sort out, but outright contradicting rules should have been addressed right away. Why haven't they?I think this is a HUGE deal as it is a rule in the Core Rulebook that is incorrect. Why hasn't this been cleaned up in one of the new printings?? This isn't confusion over interpretation, this is an OUTRIGHT RULE that is not supposed to be in there. WOW!These things happen. You can either expend energy trying to make a change, or you can expend energy expressing outrage. The choice is yours. :)
The Paizo staff is rather small and more importantly, human. There is a finite amount of man hours they can bring to bear each month. Given that the largest area of their company is designing adventurers and not rule books, it is a matter of scarce resources and opportunity costs. It could very well come down to putting the effort into correcting rules or putting the effort into finishing an AP by its printing deadline.
We are on the 4th printing of the Core Rulebook and yes it is pretty Outrageous that conflicting rules have not been cleaned up by now. Those all should have been fixed in the 2nd printing. Less clear rules might take a bit to sort out, but outright contradicting rules should have been addressed right away. Why haven't they?I think this is a HUGE deal as it is a rule in the Core Rulebook that is incorrect. Why hasn't this been cleaned up in one of the new printings?? This isn't confusion over interpretation, this is an OUTRIGHT RULE that is not supposed to be in there. WOW!These things happen. You can either expend energy trying to make a change, or you can expend energy expressing outrage. The choice is yours. :)
In their defense they have started giving a lot of attention to the FAQ so I might go ahead and buy the next printing of the core book.
It could very well come down to putting the effort into correcting rules or putting the effort into finishing an AP by its printing deadline.
Its frustrating trying to run the APs with F'ed Up rules. I'm glad they are working on the Official FAQ and I hope in the next few weeks they get all the rule issues sorted out so we can answer all of these debates with a simple 'Its in the FAQ, here is the link'.
I also hope that all these FAQ updates are added to the upcoming printings.
It could very well come down to putting the effort into correcting rules or putting the effort into finishing an AP by its printing deadline.Its frustrating trying to run the APs with F'ed Up rules. I'm glad they are working on the Official FAQ and I hope in the next few weeks they get all the rule issues sorted out so we can answer all of these debates with a simple 'Its in the FAQ, here is the link'.
I also hope that all these FAQ updates are added to the upcoming printings.
I'm not trying to be an apologist, this stuff should definitely be fixed, but the monsters in the APs and the bestiaries do use the correct rules so this particular glitch should only commonly come into play if there is a player using natural attacks. At that point one would have to look up the rules via the boards/internet.