Ok, so... my fellow PF DM and I have had a few different ideas on how to handle some of these things, but I figured I'd put it out here for some help to see if there has been any official errata or any RAW we've missed to help clarify.
For all below, assume we're talking about a character that has 2 Claws and 1 Bite, all primary.
1:: If we're reading correctly, a level 1 character with the above natural attacks could, as a full-attack action, get 2 claws and 1 bite at full base attack bonus. Please let me know if this is not correct, though I think it is.
1a:: If so, let's assume that same character wants to act as if fighting with two weapons, but while still only using natural attacks - would he be able to make an "off-hand" attack with one of his claws or bite, or would it have to be, for example, a kick or head-butt or something?
1b:: If he CAN use his claw/bite as the "off-hand" attack, I know (by RAW) that all of his natural primary attacks would be considered secondary, receiving the -5 attack roll, but would they also receive the penalties from two-weapon fighting, or would those penalties only apply to the "off-hand" attack(s)?
2:: Let's assume a higher level version of the same character (L20 Ranger or something). He's picked up multi-attack, two-weapon fighting, Imp. two-weapon fighting, and Greater two-weapon fighting. Would he effectively be sitting at something like this for the attack roll penalties from attacking with everything:
-2/-2/-2/-2/-7/-12
2a:: Assuming I've done that right, that actually helps answer the first few questions, but then there comes the min-max question of which ends up being better... 3 attacks at full attack bonus and full strength bonus, or 6 attacks with various penalties to attack rolls at only half-strength bonus?
Yes, a character with 2 primary claw attacks and 1 primary bite attack could attack with all three attacks at full BAB as a full-attack action.
Natural attacks don't interact with two-weapon fighting, although you can attack with a manufactured weapon in addition to the natural attacks.
For instance, if you wield a sword in one of your hands, you would forego one claw attack in order to get full iterative attacks with that sword, as well as the second claw and the bite at -5 penalties (-2 instead if you have the Multiattack feat).
1) This is correct.
1a) You can't two-weapon fight with natural weapons. Natural weapons don't come in 'off-hand' varieties. You can fight with normal weapons and add a secondary natural attack, but it doesn't work with natural attacks alone.
1b) N/A
2) Nope. He would still have three attacks. Two claws, one bite.
It was recently clarified that Haste does add an extra attack with natural weapons, but that is AFAIK the only way to add extra attacks (short of growing new natural weapons)
Are wrote: Yes, a character with 2 primary claw attacks and 1 primary bite attack could attack with all three attacks at full BAB as a full-attack action.
Natural attacks don't interact with two-weapon fighting, although you can attack with a manufactured weapon in addition to the natural attacks.
For instance, if you wield a sword in one of your hands, you would forego one claw attack in order to get full iterative attacks with that sword, as well as the second claw and the bite at -5 penalties (-2 instead if you have the Multiattack feat).
Ok, so then (assuming the high level character again) basically it's the option of full-attack with natural weapons, or more attacks with manufactured weapons (and possibly some secondary attacks with natural weapons, but at penalties)?
That definitely seems more balanced than what I was pondering above. :P
As others have noted, natural attacks are natural attacks, and, as such, cannot be used with iteratives or TWF.
That aside, it seems reasonable and balanced that a high level character with access to natural weapons could use one of those natural attacks with iteratives.
Things get complicated if you throw in Improved Unarmed Strike with a creature that has natural attacks. For example, a Weretiger Monk 8 with Multi-attack can use IUS + their natural attacks for Foot (+6)/Foot (+1)/Bite (+4)/Claw (+4)/Claw (+4)
Adam Ormond wrote: As others have noted, natural attacks are natural attacks, and, as such, cannot be used with iteratives or TWF.
That aside, it seems reasonable and balanced that a high level character with access to natural weapons could use one of those natural attacks with iteratives.
Things get complicated if you throw in Improved Unarmed Strike with a creature that has natural attacks. For example, a Weretiger Monk 8 with Multi-attack can use IUS + their natural attacks for Foot (+6)/Foot (+1)/Bite (+4)/Claw (+4)/Claw (+4)
So... going with that kind of idea... let's assume that first example (2 claws, 1 bite all primary) level 1 human fighter. Feats: Imp. Unarmed, Two-Weapon fighting and Weapon Finesse. Let's say he's got a Dex of 18 (+4).
Would he get 2 unarmed attacks (via two-weapon fighting) and the 3 natural weapon attacks (albeit at a -5 penalty to all), as there are no manufactured weapons involved? I.E.: Kick, Kick, Claw, Claw, Bite? Something like +3/+3/+0/+0/+0? Seems like an unarmed fighter with natural weapons would be ridiculous like this, but... yeah.
rainsinger wrote: Ok, so then (assuming the high level character again) basically it's the option of full-attack with natural weapons, or more attacks with manufactured weapons (and possibly some secondary attacks with natural weapons, but at penalties)?
That definitely seems more balanced than what I was pondering above. :P
Yes. Assuming the 20th-level Ranger, these would be some possible options for full-attacks:
1: claw, claw, bite : +20, +20, +20
2: 1h-sword, claw, bite : +20/+15/+10/+5, +15, +15
3: Two 1h-swords (full twf tree), bite : +18/+18/+13/+13/+8/+8/+3, +13
Are wrote: rainsinger wrote: Ok, so then (assuming the high level character again) basically it's the option of full-attack with natural weapons, or more attacks with manufactured weapons (and possibly some secondary attacks with natural weapons, but at penalties)?
That definitely seems more balanced than what I was pondering above. :P
Yes. Assuming the 20th-level Ranger, these would be some possible options for full-attacks:
1: claw, claw, bite : +20, +20, +20
2: 1h-sword, claw, bite : +20/+15/+10/+5, +15, +15
3: Two 1h-swords (full twf tree), bite : +18/+18/+13/+13/+8/+8/+3, +13
What about an unarmed L20 ranger...
Unarmed Attacks (Imp. Unarmed, Full TWF, Multiattack) + c/c/b : +18/+18/+13/+13/+8/+8/+3, +16/+16/+16 ??
rainsinger wrote:
What about an unarmed L20 ranger...
Unarmed Attacks (Full TWF, Multiattack) + c/c/b : +18/+18/+13/+13/+8/+8/+3, +16/+16/+16 ??
If you want to get very technical, the ability to use any part of your body for unarmed strikes is a monk class feature, not a feature of Improved Unarmed Strike, so you'd be using your fists for punching.
Slaunyeh wrote: rainsinger wrote:
What about an unarmed L20 ranger...
Unarmed Attacks (Full TWF, Multiattack) + c/c/b : +18/+18/+13/+13/+8/+8/+3, +16/+16/+16 ??
If you want to get very technical, the ability to use any part of your body for unarmed strikes is a monk class feature, not a feature of Improved Unarmed Strike, so you'd be using your fists for punching. Aye, k. Good point.
That said, if using fists, those would then replace your claw attacks, yes? So it'd be as stated above, only thing left of Nat attacks would be the bite?
rainsinger wrote:
Aye, k. Good point.
That said, if using fists, those would then replace your claw attacks, yes? So it'd be as stated above, only thing left of Nat attacks would be the bite?
Looks about right. Well, your natural attacks should be at +18, I think? Assuming multiattack. +20 BAB, -2 for being a secondary natural weapon.
Slaunyeh wrote: rainsinger wrote:
Aye, k. Good point.
That said, if using fists, those would then replace your claw attacks, yes? So it'd be as stated above, only thing left of Nat attacks would be the bite?
Looks about right. Well, your natural attacks should be at +18, I think? Assuming multiattack. +20 BAB, -2 for being a secondary natural weapon. Aye, they wouldn't get the TWF penalty, because they aren't part of the TWF attacks.
Slaunyeh wrote: rainsinger wrote:
Aye, k. Good point.
That said, if using fists, those would then replace your claw attacks, yes? So it'd be as stated above, only thing left of Nat attacks would be the bite?
Looks about right. Well, your natural attacks should be at +18, I think? Assuming multiattack. +20 BAB, -2 for being a secondary natural weapon. Though, what about a Monk 1/Ranger 19 (natural weapon)... Full TWF, Multi-Attack, and has the monk unarmed ability...
Would it then be...
+17/+17/+12/+12/+7/+7/+2, +17/+17/+17
rainsinger wrote: Though, what about a Monk 1/Ranger 19 (natural weapon)... Full TWF, Multi-Attack, and has the monk unarmed ability...
Would it then be...
+17/+17/+12/+12/+7/+7/+2, +17/+17/+17
RAW, I think that is the case.
RAI, I don't think IUS was intended to be allowed with Natural Attacks at all. Flurry of Blows explicitly denies their interaction, and FoB is really just TWF specifically for IUS.
Adam Ormond wrote: rainsinger wrote: Though, what about a Monk 1/Ranger 19 (natural weapon)... Full TWF, Multi-Attack, and has the monk unarmed ability...
Would it then be...
+17/+17/+12/+12/+7/+7/+2, +17/+17/+17
RAW, I think that is the case.
RAI, I don't think IUS was intended to be allowed with Natural Attacks at all. Flurry of Blows explicitly denies their interaction, and FoB is really just TWF specifically for IUS. Yeah, that's kind of where we're leaning. The other DM and I have been switching off between campaigns of ours about every six months, and have developed a pretty extensive house rules doc... but we never delved into the unarmed & natural weapon combat stuff to clarify our RAI. Kind of what I'm trying to do here. :P
Thanks for all the help guys.
Adam Ormond wrote: rainsinger wrote: Though, what about a Monk 1/Ranger 19 (natural weapon)... Full TWF, Multi-Attack, and has the monk unarmed ability...
Would it then be...
+17/+17/+12/+12/+7/+7/+2, +17/+17/+17
RAW, I think that is the case.
RAI, I don't think IUS was intended to be allowed with Natural Attacks at all. Flurry of Blows explicitly denies their interaction, and FoB is really just TWF specifically for IUS. Unarmed attacks and IUS do not interact with Natural Attacks in any way differently than any manufactured weapon. I think rather, that the RAI behind flurry was that you couldn't flurry a natural weapon, but that it didn't affect your usage of them. That's not how it got written, however.
Bobson wrote: Adam Ormond wrote: rainsinger wrote: Though, what about a Monk 1/Ranger 19 (natural weapon)... Full TWF, Multi-Attack, and has the monk unarmed ability...
Would it then be...
+17/+17/+12/+12/+7/+7/+2, +17/+17/+17
RAW, I think that is the case.
RAI, I don't think IUS was intended to be allowed with Natural Attacks at all. Flurry of Blows explicitly denies their interaction, and FoB is really just TWF specifically for IUS. Unarmed attacks and IUS do not interact with Natural Attacks in any way differently than any manufactured weapon. I think rather, that the RAI behind flurry was that you couldn't flurry a natural weapon, but that it didn't affect your usage of them. That's not how it got written, however. So, effectively, your opinion on this is that if you have 2 claws and 1 bite, the 2 claws will be replaced by the first two of any unarmed/armed attacks, though the bite would still be available as a secondary natural weapon attack? That seems to be a sensible, simplified version of everything... though I really wish they would just errata the natural attacks RAW to be a little more detailed.
Bobson wrote: Unarmed attacks and IUS do not interact with Natural Attacks in any way differently than any manufactured weapon. I think rather, that the RAI behind flurry was that you couldn't flurry a natural weapon, but that it didn't affect your usage of them. That's not how it got written, however. Yes, I know. I indicated that when I said "RAW, I think that is the case".
As for the RAI behind flurry, what leads you to believe that the wording in flurry resulted in something unintentional? There is a single sentence in Flurry about natural attacks, and it is broken up into two distinct concepts, both of which seem pretty explicit:
Flurry of Blows wrote: A monk with natural weapons cannot use such weapons as part of a flurry of blows, nor can he make natural attacks in addition to his flurry of blows attacks Why do you think the part before the comma was intentional, and the portion after the comma was unintentional? It's been this way for a long time, before Pathfinder came along, and was repeated in this article by WotC
The rule was definitely intentional. I'm not certain it's justified, but I'm too lazy to do all the math to find out.
Adam Ormond wrote: RAI, I don't think IUS was intended to be allowed with Natural Attacks at all. Flurry of Blows explicitly denies their interaction, and FoB is really just TWF specifically for IUS. I take this back. It is quite clear that IUS is intended to work with Natural Attacks under normal circumstances:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat wrote: 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. US was called out explicitly as working with Natural Attacks. Why the Monk was denied this with FoB is confusing to me. Looking into this only solidifies my opinion that Natural Attacks/Unarmed Attacks are implemented horribly.
Alternatively, the problem could be iterative attacks. If these didn't exist, there'd really be no confusion. If only there was a good, simple way to replace them without substantially reducing the power of the full BAB classes.
Slaunyeh wrote: If you want to get very technical, the ability to use any part of your body for unarmed strikes is a monk class feature, not a feature of Improved Unarmed Strike, so you'd be using your fists for punching. If you're going with strict OGL/Paizo rulings, yes. But WotC cleared this up in this Rules of the Game article, describing that an Unarmed Attack could be made with any free appendage that does not possess a natural weapon. Just about anything can US with their feet/knees.
rainsinger wrote: Bobson wrote: Adam Ormond wrote: rainsinger wrote: Though, what about a Monk 1/Ranger 19 (natural weapon)... Full TWF, Multi-Attack, and has the monk unarmed ability...
Would it then be...
+17/+17/+12/+12/+7/+7/+2, +17/+17/+17
RAW, I think that is the case.
RAI, I don't think IUS was intended to be allowed with Natural Attacks at all. Flurry of Blows explicitly denies their interaction, and FoB is really just TWF specifically for IUS. Unarmed attacks and IUS do not interact with Natural Attacks in any way differently than any manufactured weapon. I think rather, that the RAI behind flurry was that you couldn't flurry a natural weapon, but that it didn't affect your usage of them. That's not how it got written, however. So, effectively, your opinion on this is that if you have 2 claws and 1 bite, the 2 claws will be replaced by the first two of any unarmed/armed attacks, though the bite would still be available as a secondary natural weapon attack? That seems to be a sensible, simplified version of everything... though I really wish they would just errata the natural attacks RAW to be a little more detailed. Almost - I'd say that you'd make your normal iterative unarmed attacks, then get the two claws and a bite (at the -5 or -2 to attack and half strength damage) afterwards. There's a good case for doing it as you stated, though - it depends on whether you consider kicks legitimate unarmed attacks for non-monks.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
