Why oh why are things like claws advanced only? Why does a player need to have a CR bump to have a pair of innate natural weapons that really don't do that much damage.
Perhaps I am just ignorant of the bonus this ability would grant. It is only worth a feat - "Aspect of the Beast"
Please, why?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why oh why are things like claws advanced only? Why does a player need to have a CR bump to have a pair of innate natural weapons that really don't do that much damage.
Perhaps I am just ignorant of the bonus this ability would grant. It is only worth a feat - "Aspect of the Beast"
Please, why?
I'm for adding a Standard Power that gives claw attacks at 1d2 Tiny, 1d3 Small, 1d4 Medium, 1d6 Large for 1 RP as a standard trait.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Answer: because they dramatically increase the number of attacks available on a full attack to a low level character. And, if you have a high strength character, even a reduced damage die doesn't weaken that enough.
My personal house-rule is to use the dual-wielding rules for human-shaped things with claws. Which should be enough to put claws down to 1 or 0 RP; they're worse in combat than dual-wielding daggers, but can't be disarmed or sundered.
...Honestly, I don't expect that to make it into the official rules, though. It makes sense to me, but it's probably too much of a departure from the normal natural weapons rules. Oh, well.
The other thing I've done is given bite attacks with 0' reach. Gives all the flavor of "this race should have a bite attack", but with little to none of the mechanical issues of "this race has an extra attack it can use in normal combat." Does combine fairly strongly with spells like enlarge person, though, but that's probably ok.
|
@Emerald: I agree with you that it may give too many attacks.
The Natural Attacks vs. Iterative attacks system is problematic, to say the least, when handed to a player character.
Now, if you were to price them according to the feats, and say, make it worth the same as twf, and pick up twf penalties (or something similar but perhaps lower) or something, I could see allowing natural attacks.
so you take claws. it gets you two claw attacks, Or a claw and a manufactured weapon.
If you keep the total number of attacks equal to what you can achieve for the same value in feats, you should be easily good to go.
Balancing a 6-armed shiva race? thats a tad harder. particularly with claws.
|
I was initially saddened by the claw limitation too, but as much as I wanted to try to hate it, I can see why it is that way.
Our group is about to start a sideline Thri-Kreen only game for nights when all players can't attend, using only Paizo Pathfinder sources and this option would have been nice.
|
|
I was initially saddened by the claw limitation too, but as much as I wanted to try to hate it, I can see why it is that way.
Our group is about to start a sideline Thri-Kreen only game for nights when all players can't attend, using only Paizo Pathfinder sources and this option would have been nice.
In a game where EVERYONE has it, its not a problem to just hand it to everyone. the problem is how do you deal with the thri-kreen in a human party?
you know?
Yeah, the six-armed shiva with claws is... pretty clearly up in the advanced races category.
I actually wouldn't even include the dual-wield feat as a must-have part of claws; if you're a catfolk wizard (for an example), you may have never bothered to learn that level of coordination, and trying to full attack with claw / claw would net all the normal penalties of dual-wielding without the feat.
The one other thing I did include was a "razor claws" feat (pre-req: claw attacks that function using the dual-wield rules & +1 base attack bonus) that, mechanically, functioned like exotic weapon proficiency. My default claws were 1d4; with the feat, that went up to 1d6 x3. Of course, you also had to spend extra time sharpening your claws (at least until you could get them enchanted)... but, eh, minor details. And it offered a decent option if you wanted to actually use claws as your primary weapon.
Again, all that was my house rules. But I still think it makes for a good model on how to add claw attacks to a race in a way that's usable, makes sense, and doesn't cause balance issues.
Since it is a feat that can be technically taken at level 1, and it is cannon, and last I checked was viable for PFS (if I am not mistaken) then I can see 1D4 damage claws being viable to everyone.
I can understand that multiple attacks can be an issue, but we do have TWF. At lower levels the weapon damage dice is very important. It isn't until later levels that having multiple attacks becomes an issue but by then the lack of ability to get more attacks via base attack bonus starts to hinder.
So claws for standard humanoids dealing 1D4 damage should be perfectly balanced.
I see these comments about Shiva type characters. Non-standard humanoid races can't get multiple arms right? Even if they can, you still have the feat that they can get so this isn't just an issue for race building.
Since it is a feat that can be technically taken at level 1, and it is cannon, and last I checked was viable for PFS (if I am not mistaken) then I can see 1D4 damage claws being viable to everyone.
I can understand that multiple attacks can be an issue, but we do have TWF. At lower levels the weapon damage dice is very important. It isn't until later levels that having multiple attacks becomes an issue but by then the lack of ability to get more attacks via base attack bonus starts to hinder.
So claws for standard humanoids dealing 1D4 damage should be perfectly balanced.
I see these comments about Shiva type characters. Non-standard humanoid races can't get multiple arms right? Even if they can, you still have the feat that they can get so this isn't just an issue for race building.
I agree I have no problem with Standard Medium Humanoids having claws that do 1d4 damage for 1 RP
|
|
I agree I have no problem with Standard Medium Humanoids having claws that do 1d4 damage for 1 RPSince it is a feat that can be technically taken at level 1, and it is cannon, and last I checked was viable for PFS (if I am not mistaken) then I can see 1D4 damage claws being viable to everyone.
I can understand that multiple attacks can be an issue, but we do have TWF. At lower levels the weapon damage dice is very important. It isn't until later levels that having multiple attacks becomes an issue but by then the lack of ability to get more attacks via base attack bonus starts to hinder.
So claws for standard humanoids dealing 1D4 damage should be perfectly balanced.
I see these comments about Shiva type characters. Non-standard humanoid races can't get multiple arms right? Even if they can, you still have the feat that they can get so this isn't just an issue for race building.
What about a gore, bite, tail slap or wing buffet? And how do you limit it? do you just limit the combinations so they can only have one of the above without being advanced? limit it by level?
Just some thoughts.
Natural weapons on player characters is not a very well developed section.
I agree I have no problem with Standard Medium Humanoids having claws that do 1d4 damage for 1 RPSince it is a feat that can be technically taken at level 1, and it is cannon, and last I checked was viable for PFS (if I am not mistaken) then I can see 1D4 damage claws being viable to everyone.
I can understand that multiple attacks can be an issue, but we do have TWF. At lower levels the weapon damage dice is very important. It isn't until later levels that having multiple attacks becomes an issue but by then the lack of ability to get more attacks via base attack bonus starts to hinder.
So claws for standard humanoids dealing 1D4 damage should be perfectly balanced.
I see these comments about Shiva type characters. Non-standard humanoid races can't get multiple arms right? Even if they can, you still have the feat that they can get so this isn't just an issue for race building.
What about a gore, bite, tail slap or wing buffet? And how do you limit it? do you just limit the combinations so they can only have one of the above without being advanced? limit it by level?
Just some thoughts.
Natural weapons on player characters is not a very well developed section.
Bite is standard and 1d4 damage medium sized for 2 RP, so why not if it makes sense for the race to have a natural attack... If multiple choices are picked one is Primary all the others are Secondary (-5 to hit) maybe even a maximum number of natural weapon attacks like the Eidolon.
I had suggested in the main sticky thread that rather than disallow Advanced and Monstrous abilities, make them cost double/triple if you want a Standard creature to have the ability. That is, if you feel there is a balance issue.
So a standard creature with Claws spends 4 RP to get them rather than 2. This means a clawed creature has fewer abilities or has a weakness to get this natural attack without a feat, but can still have it in a game where "standard" races are the norm.
I had suggested in the main sticky thread that rather than disallow Advanced and Monstrous abilities, make them cost double/triple if you want a Standard creature to have the ability. That is, if you feel there is a balance issue.
So a standard creature with Claws spends 4 RP to get them rather than 2. This means a clawed creature has fewer abilities or has a weakness to get this natural attack without a feat, but can still have it in a game where "standard" races are the norm.
That makes perfect sense I would completely go with that Idea Making Advanced Attributes cost +8 RP for Standard and allowing for natural attacks and things like Speed +10 Move.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I had suggested in the main sticky thread that rather than disallow Advanced and Monstrous abilities, make them cost double/triple if you want a Standard creature to have the ability. That is, if you feel there is a balance issue.
So a standard creature with Claws spends 4 RP to get them rather than 2. This means a clawed creature has fewer abilities or has a weakness to get this natural attack without a feat, but can still have it in a game where "standard" races are the norm.
I think doubling would not make it balanced, but rather not worth it.
I think doubling would not make it balanced, but rather not worth it.I had suggested in the main sticky thread that rather than disallow Advanced and Monstrous abilities, make them cost double/triple if you want a Standard creature to have the ability. That is, if you feel there is a balance issue.
So a standard creature with Claws spends 4 RP to get them rather than 2. This means a clawed creature has fewer abilities or has a weakness to get this natural attack without a feat, but can still have it in a game where "standard" races are the norm.
Care to elaborate? Do you think it would truly weaken Standard race with claws compared to one without such a "weapon"?
Here's a (admittedly generic) sort of predatory-animal-person, made with 10 points, doubling the cost of claws:
Humanoid (0)
Medium (0)
Normal speed (0)
Standard ability Modifiers (0)
Standard language Array (1)
Claws (4 for a standard creature)
Skill bonus (2) (+2 to Stealth)
Skill bonus (2) (+2 to Perception)
Low Light Vision (1)
They look pretty competitive compared to other "standard races" to me, even if they don't have a lot of abilities. But of course that's just one build, and perhaps I'm not thinking of something.
It has been brought to my attention in another thread that there is no restriction on a minimum CR for other races, all that matters is the RPs used.
You can be monstrous but still have a equivalent 0 CR increase.
|
|
It has been brought to my attention in another thread that there is no restriction on a minimum CR for other races, all that matters is the RPs used.
You can be monstrous but still have a equivalent 0 CR increase.
Umm. yeah, but then your DM still needs to adress that you have 30 race points when the other players have 10...Wait.. no.
Theres that table that tells the GM to scale up encounters based on race points.