Just thinking over it do the benefits of natural attacks outweigh the negatives.
Now natural attacks are primarily for monsters because they are a lot more flexible than iterative attacks enabling GM to give their low CR monsters multiple attacks without large negative modifiers that they'd suffer using an iterative equivalent.
However on the other hand if natural and iterative attacks used the same rules then it would simplify a lot of situations where PC's get themselves natural attacks or when a GM wants to give monsters class levels and have both natural and manufactured weapons.
What are you feelings on this, happy with a 2 rule system or would you prefer seeing a merged set of rules which applies for everyone and everything.
I'm fine with it just because I've been playing 3.x for over 10 years now so it's not a big deal. When I made up my rules for my homebrew RPG, I certainly didn't replicate this (or iterative attacks), though.
I think the system is fine as it is, especially since I'm not sure which negatives you're referring to. I find the rules simple enough in both of the cases you mention. Of course, I've played 3.5 since it was released, so I may have forgotten the problematic issues :)
I think the system is fine as it is, especially since I'm not sure which negatives you're referring to. I find the rules simple enough in both of the cases you mention. Of course, I've played 3.5 since it was released, so I may have forgotten the problematic issues :)
I think he's referring to the inherent desire to mix the two attack methods together instead of keeping them separate. You have two choices and have to pick one of them. Do I claw, claw, bite or swing my short sword twice? It's tempting, especially if you are playing a monstrous race, to want to sword, sword, bite which you aren't allowed to do by RAW.
I think he's referring to the inherent desire to mix the two attack methods together instead of keeping them separate. You have two choices and have to pick one of them. Do I claw, claw, bite or swing my short sword twice? It's tempting, especially if you are playing a monstrous race, to want to sword, sword, bite which you aren't allowed to do by RAW.Technically you wouldn't even get claw, claw, bite, unless you dropped the sword. You'd get sword, claw, bite, with the claw and bite resolved as secondary attacks.
See, I thought it worked as one or the other. You either choose to attack with your natural attacks or you attack as a PC does with iterative attacks and you can't mix the two.
There needed to be some kind of difference, yes, once they decided to develop iterative attacks with a declining chance to hit. In 1e/2e, I think things were a bit simpler in that there were no decreasing chances to hit because of iterative attacks or secondary attacks. Everything went at your full chance to hit. Of course, fewer characters got multiple attacks in the first place and got fewer of them to boot.
Nah, you can mix the two. The manufactured weapon just replaces the natural attack in the attack order and downgrades all natural attacks to secondary. You just don't get iterative attacks when you do that:
Actually, you still get iterative attacks with your manufactured weapons, even if you mix it with natural attacks. As the rule you quoted says, you attack with your weapons normally.
So, in the example given you'd get: short sword (+8/+3), claw (+3), bite (+3).
So the Thri-kreen Monk is bad a$$.
I don't have a citation beyond the already-posted rule, but I have a lot of circumstantial evidence: Every Bestiary creature (at least all I've seen) that attacks with both manufactured weapons and natural weapons in the same attack sequence use iterative attacks.
For instance:
Archon, Hound: mwk greatsword +9/+4, bite +3
Azata, Lillend: +1 longsword +12/+7, tail slap +6
Demon, Babau: longspear +12/+7, bite +7
Demon, Marilith: +1 longsword +24/+19/+14/+9, 5 +1 longsword +24, tail slap +19
Devil, Horned: +1 unholy spiked chain +26/+21/+16, bite +22, tail +22
Devil, Ice: +1 frost spear +21/+16/+11, bite +14, tail +14
So the Thri-kreen Monk is bad a$$.
Except flurry of blows specifically calls out that a monk with natural attacks cannot use them as part of a flurry of blows or in addition to a flurry of blows.
One mechanic should not cover all forms of attack, it simply wouldn't make sense.
Should a tiger be forced to take feats like Two-Weapon Fighting and Double Slice to use their attacks effectively?
It's not difficult to figure out. You make all primary natural attacks at full bonus, adding your full STR bonus to damage. If you only have one natural attack, you add 1.5 STR bonus and use full attack bonus. Secondary are at full bonus -5, adding half your STR bonus to damage. You may make iterative attacks and natural attacks, treating all natural attacks as secondary. You cannot make a natural attack with a limb that uses a weapon.
So a weretiger in hybrid form with natural attacks (bite (primary) 2 claws (primary)) and a dagger and BAB +6 (assuming +4 STR bonus) would attack like:
dagger +10/+5 (1d4+4) and bite +5 (2d6+2) 1 claw +5 (1d8+2)
If he used a greatsword it would be like this:
greatsword +10/+5 (2d6+6) and bite +5 (2d6+2)
Makes sense to me. Though, this is just my perspective but I still balk at the sheer numbers of attacks in 3.x. It may be more simulationist, but it's a horrid lump of game mechanics that just bogs games down at higher levels when they already tend to be bogged down enough between special abilities and magic as it is.
I agree.
I like the current system. Makes more sense to me. Animals and monsters shouldn't fight like weapon using humanoids.
I don't have a citation beyond the already-posted rule, but I have a lot of circumstantial evidence: Every Bestiary creature (at least all I've seen) that attacks with both manufactured weapons and natural weapons in the same attack sequence use iterative attacks.Makes sense to me. Though, this is just my perspective but I still balk at the sheer numbers of attacks in 3.x. It may be more simulationist, but it's a horrid lump of game mechanics that just bogs games down at higher levels when they already tend to be bogged down enough between special abilities and magic as it is.
Iterative attacks is still a very poor simulation of real fighting, especially for archery. Longbowmen were considered excellent if they could get off one accurate shot every 12 seconds. In D&D with a strengthened composite longbow, archers can eventually get off 6 shots without haste. Not very simulationist at all.
Physical combat is a bit more on target as when exchanges happen they tend to be fast and furious. But defense is far more active than D&D defense which is simulated by a combination of hit points and AC. There is no active defense in D&D unless it is a class ability. Which is not very simulationist at all.
But it works in the high fantasy framework of D&D if you accept what things like hit points and AC mean.