Correct. Assuming Multiattack is table-legal and you meet the prerequisites, your secondary natural attacks would be at -2 penalty instead of -5. This puts them at the same penalty as TWF with feat+light weapon, but they are otherwise unrelated.
Would the multiattack be table legal then for a synthesist (summoner) that gains the eidolons special abilities as per:
The synthesist also gains access to the eidolon’s special abilities and the eidolon’s evolutions.
This is recieved at lvl 9 and the text for it is the following:
Multiattack
An eidolon gains Multiattack as a bonus feat if it has 3 or more natural attacks and does not already have that feat. If it does not have the requisite 3 or more natural attacks (or it is reduced to less than 3 attacks), the eidolon instead gains a second attack with one of its natural weapons, albeit at a –5 penalty. If the eidolon later gains 3 or more natural attacks, it loses this additional attack and instead gains Multiattack.
To me it should be table legal...or?
** Edit **
Btw have not seen it... what is the threat range and crit multiplier for natural weapons?
Best Regards!
/Thrilled
|
Remember that natural weapons combined with weapons attacks only get half str bonus unless the synthesist has some special ability so ALL those natural attacks are at 1/2 STR.
Remember that the synthesist is still subject to the rules of combining manufactured weapon attacks and natural weapon attacks in the same round (in that the natural weapons are always considered secondary and therefore have a -5 attack penalty).So the results should be:
BAB 15
3 Primary weapon attacks
3 Primary natural weapon attacks
1 Secondary natural weapon attack1st Weapon (Primary) attack: +15 (Full str bonus)
2nd Weapon (Primary) attack: +10(Full str bonus)
3rd Weapon (Primary) attack: +5 (Full str bonus)
1st Natural (Secondary) attack: +10 (Full str bonus)
2nd Natural (Secondary) attack: +10 (Full str bonus)
3rd Natural (Secondary) attack: +10 (Full str bonus)
4th Natural (Secondary) attack: +10 (Half str bonus)/T
He also forfeits any natural attack with a limb used to wield a manufactured weapon -- so the guy above would need seven limbs, or be a monk with flurry-of-blows using elbows, knees, etc.
OK i just happened to find this thread and it coincided perfectly with an NPC im working on for kingmaker, so i read the entire thread. I seen a couple posters commenting on the rare niche circumstances that a monk could even gain natural attacks. While there are a few sources there is one REALLY big one i haven't seen mentioned yet. Not everything is JUST for players, GM's use a lot of the rules for monsters with class levels which gives us GM's even more angles to consider.
This would have a big impact on a lycanthrope monk, take a werebear monk for instance...ouch!
Most posters had some really good points or made a good case. Unlike most, i actually found myself flipping sides from post to post. The more i did my own digging the more uncertain i became to where i now have my own opinion that seems to differ from everyone else.
There appear to be two sides
Feral combat training allows-
1) The natural attack can be used in a FoB as if it were a monk weapon OR
2) The natural attack can be made in addition to a flurry like any other player with TWF can.
I'm throwing a 3rd option in the mix and will follow with my evidence.
3) The natural weapon can be used with BOTH 1&2
Supporting evidence-
PRD- "A monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands. A monk may substitute disarm, sunder, and trip combat maneuvers for unarmed attacks as part of a flurry of blows. A monk cannot use any weapon other than an unarmed strike or a special monk weapon as part of a flurry of blows. 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."
Feral combat training-
Special: If you are a monk, you can use the selected natural weapon with your flurry of blows class feature.
It doesn't state exactly HOW or put a LIMIT on how so i think it's fair to assume he can use his feral combat within the context of FoB by including it and changing the wording that excludes natural weapons.
Example- "A monk cannot use any weapon other than an unarmed strike or a special monk weapon as part of a flurry of blows. 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."
Again Feral Combat Training simply states it can be used with FoB. FoB clearly states two separate ways where natural weapons can not be used with FoB. Feral combat training does not refer to any specific wording with FoB or state a limitation. So, as worded it can be applied to FoB in all cases and especially in the wording of FoB where it says natural weapons CANNOT be used. So,if reworded to include Natural weapons it would be worded as follows.
"A monk cannot use any weapon other than an unarmed strike, a special monk weapon, or a natural weapon selected with Feral combat training as part of a flurry of blows. A monk with natural weapons CAN use such weapons as part of a flurry of blows, AND he can make natural attacks in addition to his flurry of blows."
Any other PC can already twf and attack main hand/off hand/ claw/claw/ bite. It seems allowing a monk to do it with a flurry at the cost of a feat and allowing it as a monk weapon seems to be within what the feat says it does- It can be used with FoB in it's entirety.
So in my opinion- both sides were right and wrong and now we have a 3rd side lol. This is how i'm go ind to run the feat regardless. Opinions?
|
|
Any other [non-monk] PC can already twf and attack main hand/off hand/ claw/claw/ bite.
Not unless they have four arms.
CRB, p182:
"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."
What about the question above regarding Multiattack being table-legal for a synthetist when his eidolon gains lvl 9 and thus are granted that ability?
/T
"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."
Oh good, the Druid turning into a velociraptor is going to use bite claw claw talon talon Tailkwondo do flurry
"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."Oh good, the Druid turning into a velociraptor is going to use bite claw claw talon talon Tailkwondo do flurry
So?
He didn't even need flurry to do that, he could get Imp. Unnarmed strike and already do it. This goes for ANYTHING with natural attacks. Get Imp. Unnarmed and increase the number of attacks, if you get 2-weapon fighting, then it resembles flurry.
Oh, BTW, someone who is not a monk, doesn't even need Feral Combat Training to do those things, odd, ain't it?
He didn't even need flurry to do that he could get Imp. Unnarmed strike and already do it.
I think that's valid but still kind of questionable, there's no current rule i'm aware of for how natural attacks and unarmed strikes are supposed to interact without the feat.
This goes for ANYTHING with natural attacks. Get Imp. Unnarmed and increase the number of attacks, if you get 2-weapon fighting, then it resembles flurry.
This one i think is worse than iffy.
Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 9. See Two-Weapon Fighting (Combat).
The rules for using melee weapons and natural attacks are not the same.
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.
He didn't even need flurry to do that he could get Imp. Unnarmed strike and already do it.I think that's valid but still kind of questionable, there's no current rule i'm aware of for how natural attacks and unarmed strikes are supposed to interact without the feat.
This goes for ANYTHING with natural attacks. Get Imp. Unnarmed and increase the number of attacks, if you get 2-weapon fighting, then it resembles flurry.This one i think is worse than iffy.
Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 9. See Two-Weapon Fighting (Combat).
The rules for using melee weapons and natural attacks are not the same.
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.
I'm not sure where you are getting at mate.
The rules for Unnarmed Strike and natural weapons is the same as with anyother weapon.
As I stated if you are not a monk and have Imp. Unnarmed and the 2 weapon chain, you can use all your unnarmed strikes and your natural weapons in adition to it.
I'm not sure where you are getting at mate.
As I stated if you are not a monk and have Imp. Unnarmed and the 2 weapon chain, you can use all your unnarmed strikes and your natural weapons in adition to it.
That doesn't work anymore. They put out two rules for the interaction between natural and manufactured weapons and didn't tell anyone *grumble grumble*
Q: The rules for Natural Attacks and weapons from the Core book are different from what is in the Bestiary. The Core rules say that if combining natural and weapon attacks that they are treated as if using two-weapon fighting, but the Bestiary matches to what is in the 3.5 rules. Which is correct?
A: (James Jacobs 10/30/09) Part of the problem, alas, is that this is a rules mechanic that Jason was wrestling with up to the very last second. The Bestiary rules are correct. The part in the core rules that contradicts this is a fragment, alas, that stuck in there. It should be cleaned up, I agree. It's unfortunate that the confusion is in there, but again, as far as I understand the game and as far as I've been using the rules for the last several volumes of Pathfinder, the rules from the Bestiary are the correct ones.
The rules i quoted before are from the beastiary, and they won't work with twf.
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.
The rules for Unnarmed Strike and natural weapons is the same as with anyother weapon.
If you're using a sword and a fist yes. If you're using a two handed sword and a kick its a bit iffy. if you're using 5 natural weapons and a tail you're king of outside the scope of the rules.
I'm not sure where you are getting at mate.
As I stated if you are not a monk and have Imp. Unnarmed and the 2 weapon chain, you can use all your unnarmed strikes and your natural weapons in adition to it.
That doesn't work anymore. They put out two rules for the interaction between natural and manufactured weapons and didn't tell anyone *grumble grumble*
Q: The rules for Natural Attacks and weapons from the Core book are different from what is in the Bestiary. The Core rules say that if combining natural and weapon attacks that they are treated as if using two-weapon fighting, but the Bestiary matches to what is in the 3.5 rules. Which is correct?
A: (James Jacobs 10/30/09) Part of the problem, alas, is that this is a rules mechanic that Jason was wrestling with up to the very last second. The Bestiary rules are correct. The part in the core rules that contradicts this is a fragment, alas, that stuck in there. It should be cleaned up, I agree. It's unfortunate that the confusion is in there, but again, as far as I understand the game and as far as I've been using the rules for the last several volumes of Pathfinder, the rules from the Bestiary are the correct ones.
The rules i quoted before are from the beastiary, and they won't work with twf.
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.
The good news is that multi attack can kick in..
The rules for Unnarmed Strike and natural weapons is the same as with anyother weapon.
If you're using a sword and a fist yes. If you're using a two handed sword and a kick its a bit iffy. if you're using 5 natural weapons and a tail you're king of outside the scope of the rules, but there's nothing that says it doesn't work.
I don't think you are following.
I agree with the -5 and the 1/2 Str there.
But say a guy has a tail, two wings, a bite and a horn.
The same guy has 2 swords and 2 weapon fighting.
He will attack with both weapons at -2 (considering they are small) and all of his natural attacks with -5 to his Bab and 1/2 str to damage.
Now, that same guy DOES not have 2 swords, instead, he has Imp. unnarmed strike and 2 weapon fighting. It would work exactly the same way, except that if he had 2 claws, he could use them too, since Unnarmed Strikes are done using ANY part of the creatures body.
I'm not sure we are disagreeing here, Wolfie.
I don't think you are following.
quite possible. Its beeen a loooong night.
I agree with the -5 and the 1/2 Str there.
But say a guy has a tail, two wings, a bite and a horn.
-keep in mind most wing attacks don't actually grant you attacks. I can look up the statement from the devs on that one if you want
Now, that same guy DOES not have 2 swords, instead, he has Imp. unnarmed strike and 2 weapon fighting. It would work exactly the same way, except that if he had 2 claws, he could use them too, since Unnarmed Strikes are done using ANY part of the creatures body.
I'm not sure we are disagreeing here, Wolfie.
Not disagreeing but not quite agreeing. How improved unarmed strike mixes with natural weapons or manufactured weapons isn't covered well in the rules. The DM has to interpret there. I agree with your interpretation, but it can get fairly abused if you try to declare every part of the body as its own weapon to two weapon fight with.
|
-keep in mind most wing attacks don't actually grant you attacks. I can look up the statement from the devs on that one if you want
Wing Buffet (Ex)
An eidolon learns to use its wings to batter foes, granting it two wing buffet attacks. These attacks are secondary attacks. The wing buffets deal 1d4 points of damage (1d6 if Large, 1d8 if Huge). The eidolon must possess the flight evolution, with wings, to select this evolution. Source: Advanced Player's Guide
Except for when the wing attacks explicitly grant you attacks.
|
|
if you're using 5 natural weapons and a tail you're king of outside the scope of the rules, but there's nothing that says it doesn't work.
Or a normal synthesist, which is the only class with an explicit upper limit on number of allowed attacks when using natural weapons.
A synthesist cannot take the two-weapon fighting chain and add in natural weapons as secondary attacks above a pre-set limit, a limit that is lower than what other classes are capable of.
(not that I don't understand the limit, without it, a synthesist's attacks / round would explode)
Oh, BTW, someone who is not a monk, doesn't even need Feral Combat Training to do those things, odd, ain't it?
A bard using TWF and bite works exactly the same as a monk using TWF and bite. It's not odd at all.
if you are not a monk and have Imp. Unnarmed and the 2 weapon chain, you can use all your unnarmed strikes and your natural weapons in adition to it.
And if you ARE a monk and have the TWF chain, you can also use all your unarmed strikes and your natural weapons in addition to it.
Oh, BTW, someone who is not a monk, doesn't even need Feral Combat Training to do those things, odd, ain't it?A bard using TWF and bite works exactly the same as a monk using TWF and bite. It's not odd at all.
if you are not a monk and have Imp. Unnarmed and the 2 weapon chain, you can use all your unnarmed strikes and your natural weapons in adition to it.And if you ARE a monk and have the TWF chain, you can also use all your unarmed strikes and your natural weapons in addition to it.
Mate, I get that you don't like the way I think this feat works,you are repeating yourself. And me too, probably.
But the fact remains, why would monks be the ONLY class that would have to pay 2 feats to do something anyone with the same feats he gets as a bonus don't have to pay?
Making something useless is not the way to go. (some can argue it has it's uses, but so does Death or Glory)
But the fact remains, why would monks be the ONLY class that would have to pay 2 feats to do something anyone with the same feats he gets as a bonus don't have to pay?
A level 15 bard must spend four feats in order to punch a guy six times then bite him. (IUS, TWF, ITWF, GTWF)
A level 15 monk needs those same feats in order to punch a guy six times then bite him.
Flurry is not TWF. He gets extra attacks as if using those feats, but there are more restrictions (and bonuses) for doing so.
You keep saying that Class A can spend four feats to do something Class B cannot do for free. A wizard with Lunge can attack at reach, but a monk (without the feat) can't!
It has nothing to do with Feral Combat Training. It's a base game mechanic and making false comparisons doesn't help make an unrelated feat do anything differently.
Flurry is not TWF. He gets extra attacks as if using those feats, but there are more restrictions (and bonuses) for doing so.
I see no diference whatsoever. In my mind, if you act like you have those feats, it's as if you had them for that purpose, it's stated in the FoB that it does not work with natural attacks, fine.
With feral combat training it changes so it does work for anyother class, but at this point, I believe you and I are gonna have to agree on disagreeing.I try to "rate" feats not only for what is writen, as for intent and usefulness, if something is not well writen and seems subpar, I believe the intent may be the good interpretation, as is the case with this feat. In fact, there was no doubt in my mind that it worked as I believe it does, until this thread.
There are no false comparisons, it's a totally fair assumption. If you play a 2-weapon fighting ranger u only need imp. unnarmed strike to acomplish those things. And at a faster pace.
I see no diference whatsoever.
Here are some differences:
Flurry of Blows can only be made with unarmed strikes and/or attacks with a monk weapon. It increases the monk's BAB. It allows extra attacks at later levels. The monk applies full Strength bonus to all of the attacks. The monk may substitute a sunder combat maneuver in place of an attack. The monk cannot use other weapons or natural attacks.
Two-Weapon Fighting can be used with any weapons. There are significant penalties for Two-Weapon Fighting without a feat, and it does not increase the number of attacks without taking more feats. It does not increase a characters BAB, and the off-hand attacks only get half Strength bonus to damage. A character cannot substitute a sunder CM while TWF. A character can combine TWF with natural attacks.
I see no diference whatsoever.Here are some differences:
Flurry of Blows can only be made with unarmed strikes and/or attacks with a monk weapon. It increases the monk's BAB. It allows extra attacks at later levels. The monk applies full Strength bonus to all of the attacks. The monk may substitute a sunder combat maneuver in place of an attack. The monk cannot use other weapons or natural attacks.
Two-Weapon Fighting can be used with any weapons. There are significant penalties for Two-Weapon Fighting without a feat, and it does not increase the number of attacks without taking more feats. It does not increase a characters BAB, and the off-hand attacks only get half Strength bonus to damage. A character cannot substitute a sunder CM while TWF. A character can combine TWF with natural attacks.
Ok, so it works exactly the same as a Full BaB character with Imp. Unnarmed Strikes and 2-Weapon fighting feats. Got it.
To be honest, I don't get the Sunder part.
Ok, so it works exactly the same as a Full BaB character with Imp. Unnarmed Strikes and 2-Weapon fighting feats. Got it.
You continue to be disingenuous.
To be honest, I don't get the Sunder part.
Normally, you can attempt to sunder as part of an attack action. An attack action is a standard action, and thus cannot be used with a full-attack. Flurry of Blows specifically allows a monk to substitute a sunder combat maneuver for an unarmed strike during a flurry, something your 4-feat-fighter can never do (along with full strength bonus and extra BAB).
Ok, so it works exactly the same as a Full BaB character with Imp. Unnarmed Strikes and 2-Weapon fighting feats. Got it.You continue to be disingenuous.
Not my intention mate. Just trying to show you that it's basically the same thing. Although with little diferences.
To be honest, I don't get the Sunder part.
Normally, you can attempt to sunder as part of an attack action. An attack action is a standard action, and thus cannot be used with a full-attack. Flurry of Blows specifically allows a monk to substitute a sunder combat maneuver for an unarmed strike during a flurry, something your 4-feat-fighter can never do (along with full strength bonus and extra BAB).
Actually, I always beleived that Sunder, Trip and Disarm could be dome more than once per round, unlike the other maneuvers. Gotta read that again.
Found it
"Sunder
You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack."
You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack."
Yep. Though, lots of people houserule out the "attack action" part so it reads the same as disarm and trip.
You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack."Yep. Though, lots of people houserule out the "attack action" part so it reads the same as disarm and trip.
I don't think that's a house rule mate. If you think about it, there are 2 types of maneuvers, those that require a standard action and those that are made in place of an attack. This one is clearly the later, although they forgot to erase that "attack action" part.
Paizo need more people looking into those tiny little words that make our lives so dificult.
|
Not my intention mate. Just trying to show you that it's basically the same thing. Although with little diferences.Ok, so it works exactly the same as a Full BaB character with Imp. Unnarmed Strikes and 2-Weapon fighting feats. Got it.You continue to be disingenuous.
It's even more different then that. Also add in the double slice feat AND add a 4 more limbs. Remember the fighter is specifically only allowed to use his hands, feet and headbutt with his unarmed strike the Monk can use his whole body + weapons, the fighter cannot.
And don't forget the fighter is going to do less than 1/3rd the damage the monk does with the same routine (increased damage die + full strength bonus + 2 different spells that can improve it.
Not my intention mate. Just trying to show you that it's basically the same thing. Although with little diferences.Ok, so it works exactly the same as a Full BaB character with Imp. Unnarmed Strikes and 2-Weapon fighting feats. Got it.You continue to be disingenuous.It's even more different then that. Also add in the double slice feat AND add a 4 more limbs. Remember the fighter is specifically only allowed to use his hands, feet and headbutt with his unarmed strike the Monk can use his whole body + weapons, the fighter cannot.
And don't forget the fighter is going to do less than 1/3rd the damage the monk does with the same routine (increased damage die + full strength bonus + 2 different spells that can improve it.
That's something I do not agree with. Although it's stated under the Monk description, it seems to me that the only good explanation on Unnarmed strike is on the monk section. But I think, most of it, applies to all those who have it.
So, I think the Full Str Bonus applies to all (even if 2 weapon fighting) and the whole body part too.Please, do prove me incorrect by poiting me to the right rules. (that's not sarcasm, btw) :)
So, here's what I'm reading in this feat. It allows unarmed strikes to be mixed with natural attacks during a flurry. Therefore, if a level 1 tusked monk uses flurry. Normally, they'd be allowed 3 attacks in their turn, 2 unarmed flurry attacks, and a (now secondary) bite attack.
Now, if we look at the natural weapon entry from the PFSRD:
So, the same tusked monk from the previous example has Feral Combat (let's just assume he has JUST the feat, and none of the other prereqs, for the sake of simplicity). It can now take either three attacks (see the previous example), or it can trade it's 1 secondary bite attack (as per the quoted rule section) for 1 bite attack in it's flurry and 1 unarmed, or simply make 2 bite attacks as part of a flurry. (therefore being a primary attack).
You have to take feral combat once for each natural attack type you have available. Once for bite, once for claws, etc. Not seeing an immense amount of power from this.Good question.
If you can now flurry with natural weapons then the feat is really broken. Bad execution, that is why I don't like splatbooks.
Anyway I hit FAQ. Do so too.
For a player, no.
For a monster with ability drain or other nasty stuff, yes.
Which in no way breaks the game, since monsters are DM territory and can be created in any way. There's already loads of ways to destroy parties if you want to.
I think the Full Str Bonus applies to all (even if 2 weapon fighting) and the whole body part too.
Please, do prove me incorrect by poiting me to the right rules.
Off-Hand Weapon: "When you deal damage with a weapon in your off hand, you add only 1/2 your Strength bonus. If you have a Strength penalty, the entire penalty applies."
Flurry of Blows (Ex): "A monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands."
|
|
"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."Oh good, the Druid turning into a velociraptor is going to use bite claw claw talon talon Tailkwondo do flurrySo? He didn't even need flurry to do that, he could get Imp. Unnarmed strike and already do it. This goes for ANYTHING with natural attacks. Get Imp. Unnarmed and increase the number of attacks, if you get 2-weapon fighting, then it resembles flurry.
Oh, BTW, someone who is not a monk, doesn't even need Feral Combat Training to do those things, odd, ain't it?
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Only a monk can use any of his limbs (or no limb at all) to deliver unarmed strikes:
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."
-- No other class (not even fighter[unarmed]) contains that phraseology.
Improved Unarmed Strike has nothing to do with it (that just avoids AoOs).
Flurry has nothing to do with it (that just gives you more attacks).
- - - -
Most of you people building uber-DPR multi-attack beasts are doing it wrong; and on any given Sunday, your GM is going to go waitjustaminute and nerfbat you outa the park.
Most of you people building uber-DPR multi-attack beasts are doing it wrong, and on any given Sunday, your GM is going to go waitjustaminute and swing the nerfbat.
Okay, so a monk can do that. Nowhere does it say a fighter CAN'T make kicks (just as an example) as his unarmed strike. If it does, please point me to it.
"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."Oh good, the Druid turning into a velociraptor is going to use bite claw claw talon talon Tailkwondo do flurrySo? He didn't even need flurry to do that, he could get Imp. Unnarmed strike and already do it. This goes for ANYTHING with natural attacks. Get Imp. Unnarmed and increase the number of attacks, if you get 2-weapon fighting, then it resembles flurry.
Oh, BTW, someone who is not a monk, doesn't even need Feral Combat Training to do those things, odd, ain't it?
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Only a monk can use any of his limbs (or no limb at all) to deliver unarmed strikes:** spoiler omitted **
-- No other class (not even fighter[unarmed]) contains that phraseology.Most of you people building uber-DPR multi-attack beasts are doing it wrong, and on any given Sunday, your GM is going to go waitjustaminute and swing the nerfbat.
That's not proof. As there is no other text dealing with unnarmed strike. That's the issue, cause I believe this one, applies to all who take the Feat. Since it's where the feat is explained thouroughly.
BTW, all I'm saying can be done, and I don't even need to make a monk to do it.
Nowhere does it say a fighter CAN'T make kicks (just as an example) as his unarmed strike. If it does, please point me to it.Nowhere does it say he can't blow a 20d6 Flamestrike out his butt, either.
You guys are cruisin' for nerfbattin'.
Do you at least agree with my interpretation of the feat being discussed?
Nowhere does it say a fighter CAN'T make kicks (just as an example) as his unarmed strike. If it does, please point me to it.Nowhere does it say he can't blow a 20d6 Flamestrike out his butt, either.
You guys are cruisin' for nerfbattin'.
Actually, this is what's stated for unarmed combat:
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html#unarmed-attacks"Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon"
Thus insinuating the standard allowed unarmed attacks are at least punches, kicks, and head butts - monk adding elbows and knees.
Only a monk can use any of his limbs (or no limb at all) to deliver unarmed strikes
Unarmed Attacks: "Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following..."
Nowhere does it say a fighter CAN'T make kicks (just as an example) as his unarmed strike. If it does, please point me to it.Nowhere does it say he can't blow a 20d6 Flamestrike out his butt, either.
You guys are cruisin' for nerfbattin'.
You are right. Anyone that's not a monk and has Imp. Unarmed strike can only fight like a boxer from the 20s. I'm sure that's the way to use it.
|
|
"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."Oh good, the Druid turning into a velociraptor is going to use bite claw claw talon talon Tailkwondo do flurrySo? He didn't even need flurry to do that, he could get Imp. Unnarmed strike and already do it. This goes for ANYTHING with natural attacks. Get Imp. Unnarmed and increase the number of attacks, if you get 2-weapon fighting, then it resembles flurry.
Oh, BTW, someone who is not a monk, doesn't even need Feral Combat Training to do those things, odd, ain't it?
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Only a monk can use any of his limbs (or no limb at all) to deliver unarmed strikes:** spoiler omitted **
-- No other class (not even fighter[unarmed]) contains that phraseology.Most of you people building uber-DPR multi-attack beasts are doing it wrong, and on any given Sunday, your GM is going to go waitjustaminute and swing the nerfbat.
That's not proof. As there is no other text dealing with unnarmed strike. That's the issue, cause I believe this one, applies to all who take the Feat. Since it's where the feat is explained thouroughly.
BTW, all I'm saying can be done, and I don't even need to make a monk to do it.
You're looking at the wrong entry, go to the Combat section of the core rules and look up unarmed attacks (not strikes) and you will see this entry:
Unarmed Attacks
Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon
This is the default for ALL PC's who want to make unarmed attacks. The monk alone has an entry that specifically allows him to use his knees & elbows. Remember if everyone could do it they wouldn't have needed to make an exception in writing for this class.
Also to be perfectly honest a fighter cannot make an unarmed attack with his head or feet if his hands are full, also something only a monk is allowed to do. (Yes I know it's weird) but again the monk has extra language saying he can so without that language you can't.
This is the default for ALL PC's who want to make unarmed attacks. The monk alone has an entry that specifically allows him to use his knees & elbows. Remember if everyone could do it they wouldn't have needed to make an exception in writing for this class.
Also to be perfectly honest a fighter cannot make an unarmed attack with his head or feet if his hands are full, also something only a monk is allowed to do. (Yes I know it's weird) but again the monk has extra language saying he can so without that language you can't.
Sorry mate, I simply cannot agree with that. We've all seem that many books have wrong entries and things they simply didn't think would come up, but they do.
So, I'm sticking with "any bodypart can be used as unnarmed strike" until some FAQ proves me wrong.
The main thing that prevents people using unarmed strikes in addition to other attacks is the fact that unarmed attacks are NOT NATURAL WEAPONS, and therefore cannot be used as secondary attacks when making other attacks.
Sorry mate, I simply cannot agree with that. We've all seem that many books have wrong entries and things they simply didn't think would come up, but they do.
So, I'm sticking with "any bodypart can be used as unnarmed strike" until some FAQ proves me wrong.
Why does it matter? Also, if we're going by that, what differentiates a slam attack from an unarmed strike?
|
|
This is the default for ALL PC's who want to make unarmed attacks. The monk alone has an entry that specifically allows him to use his knees & elbows. Remember if everyone could do it they wouldn't have needed to make an exception in writing for this class.
Also to be perfectly honest a fighter cannot make an unarmed attack with his head or feet if his hands are full, also something only a monk is allowed to do. (Yes I know it's weird) but again the monk has extra language saying he can so without that language you can't.
Sorry mate, I simply cannot agree with that. We've all seem that many books have wrong entries and things they simply didn't think would come up, but they do.
So, I'm sticking with "any bodypart can be used as unnarmed strike" until some FAQ proves me wrong.
In your home game feel free to do anything you wish, rule zero trumps everything else. If you go by RAW as we all are doing here you are stuck with the black and white rules shown to you and they all agree on the basics.