Ok Kick is not a natural weapon attack for anyone but monks.
Rule for unarmed combat:
Spoiler:
Unarmed Attacks
Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:
Attacks of Opportunity: Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed. The attack of opportunity comes before your attack. An unarmed attack does not provoke attacks of opportunity from other foes, nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe.
An unarmed character can't take attacks of opportunity (but see "Armed" Unarmed Attacks, below).
"Armed" Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).
Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity).
Unarmed Strike Damage: An unarmed strike from a Medium character deals 1d3 points of bludgeoning damage (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). A Small character's unarmed strike deals 1d2 points of bludgeoning damage, while a Large character's unarmed strike deals 1d4 points of bludgeoning damage. All damage from unarmed strikes is nonlethal damage. Unarmed strikes count as shed light (for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties and so on).
Dealing Lethal Damage: You can specify that your unarmed strike will deal lethal damage before you make your attack roll, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll. If you have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, you can deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike without taking a penalty on the attack roll.
and for Improved unarmed strike:
Spoiler:
Improved Unarmed Strike (Combat)
You are skilled at fighting while unarmed.
Benefit: You are considered to be armed even when unarmed—you do not provoke attacks of opportunity when you attack foes while unarmed. Your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your choice.
Normal: Without this feat, you are considered unarmed when attacking with an unarmed strike, and you can deal only nonlethal damage with such an attack.
and now the monks rule.
Spoiler:
Unarmed Strike
At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet . This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes.
Usually a monk's unarmed strikes deal lethal damage, but he can choose to deal nonlethal damage instead with no penalty on his attack roll. He has the same choice to deal lethal or nonlethal damage while grappling.
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.
A monk also deals more damage with his unarmed strikes than a normal person would, as shown above on Table: Monk. The unarmed damage values listed on Table: Monk is for Medium monks. A Small monk deals less damage than the amount given there with his unarmed attacks, while a Large monk deals more damage; see Table: Small or Large Monk Unarmed Damage.
And finally universal monster rules on natural attacks:
Spoiler:
Natural Attacks:
...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....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.....Some creatures do not have natural attacks. These creatures can make unarmed strikes just like humans do.
Natural Attack's:
Bite,Claw,Gore,Hoof,Tentacle,Wing,Pincers,Tail Slap ,Slam,Sting,Talons,Other......
And I think this should apply
Spoiler:
D&D Raw: The number of attacks a creature can make with its natural weapons depends on the type of the attack—generally, a creature can make one bite attack, one attack per claw or tentacle , one gore attack, one sting attack, or one slam attack (although Large creatures with arms or arm-like limbs can make a slam attack with each arm). Refer to the individual monster descriptions.
what this shows is that Only the monk is treated as having natural attacks with kick because of the rule of any part of body can be used. Now the feat does nothing but take away the nonlethal feature and make people treated as armed. It does not make them natural attacks.. so putting claws on the feet is the only way to make them attacks. Even Boot blades would only work with imporved unarmed for non monks for making "offhand" attacks with two weapon fighting. it would not give you an attack with kick since you are limited to 1 main hand and 1 offhand and then extra for high BA and feats. but having a bladed boot unlike rules for natural attacks would not give you any extra attacks. So no Longsword/Shortsword/Kick. It can not occur without high BA and imporved two weapon fighting etc.. Longsword/Shortsword/Foot Claw/Foot Claw would work because creatures get to attack with all natural attacks they have and weapons, but with negatives.
Please we need to ignore the monk in any discussion here. He is treated differnetly and is unique. This discussion is for Claws on Feet, A natural attack that uses Foot Claws. Something that is a natural weapon and the logistics of can a person use it and Claws on Hands.
I for one keep saying that their has been absolutly no evidence given to say it cant work, nothing offical, the few people arguing about it not working say it shouldnt work but cant bring forth any evidence in RAW stating it. (and Example Monsters in Bestiary that you say should have claws does not take into account the CR variant. More attacks mean higher CR.. read savage species if they gave the attacks that could really have the CR would have to be raised) Eidolons are a great example however since they also do not limit where to put most evolutions and they also have a listed max natural attack option that explains how as long as he has the body part and natural weapon he can attack up to the amount listed.
That is because Like I tell my group over and over again. RAW are guidelines and are imcomplete because no person can imagine every single scenario that will and does occur in a D&D campaign. And with an everchanging game with new material, the developers do not comprehend the scope players will go to read all the material and come up with combos that were never forseen. That is why I dont stick to RAW 100% I have to take into account that an idea may not ahve been covered.
Ok Kick is not a natural weapon attack for anyone but monks.
... I don't think anyone has been arguing that point. It's not even a natural attack, its a natural weapon which only governs what it can be enhanced by.
This is so funny we have threads that argue casters dominates melees in the game. But then we have threads where someone interprets a ruling on natural attacks that can ever so slightly bump up the dpr of melees for a few select builds.
Not even an optimal dpr build just an interpretation of the rules to make natural attacks by melee PCs a bit better. Then we have people rushing in and saying OMG OP, munchkinism.
This is why melee can't ever close the gap with casters because anytime someone proposes an interpretation of the rule that gains them even an iota of power we have an army of people screaming munchkin.
Yes you can can kick twice and swing a sword a couple of times in 6 seconds easily if you are trained in combat. Not even talking about fantasy combat where characters have super human strength and speed.
If you need a pop culture example of someone with claws on the feet and fighting with them, Beast in X-Men do it all the g!&*~%n time.
I'm against munchkinism and rules lawyering. If you allow it for the melee, like anything else, its FAR worse once the casters get hold of it.
Explain how a wizard or sorcerer getting claws on their feet would make it much worse.
by "it" i mean munchkinism.
I'm against munchkinism and rules lawyering. If you allow munchkinism and rules lawyering for the melee, like anything else, the munchkining and rules lawyer gets FAR worse once the casters get hold of it
I'm against munchkinism and rules lawyering. If you allow munchkinism and rules lawyering for the melee, like anything else, the munchkining and rules lawyer gets FAR worse once the casters get hold of it
You should take a look at the thread where people are arguing for enchanting a monks unarmed strike.
What's wrong with that? All you have to do is declare backward compatibility with 3.0 materials, craft a masterwork statue, cast a Permanency'd Animate Objects spell on the statue so it is now a (masterwork) Construct, and then cast Incarnate Construct on it, turning it into a living creature. Now all it has to do is gain monk levels and enchant itself. Bonus flavor points if it takes Pathfinder's item creation feats to do so.
HOWEVER: The brightness seeker lv 2 ability "Channel past incarnation" lets you manifest a number of effects. You chose the one you use at the beginning of each day. ONE of which is claws and a bite.
If he has lesser beast totem then he can keep the claws of beast totem while manifesting another effect from past incarnation. I suggest the wings.
Any new consensus on this? The RAW seems to favor allowing bipeds to have claw attacks via their feet, but I'm not so sure it's intended. I'd love to see a rules clarification on this.
