There is no "extra" attack, a 1st level changeling with the adopted/tusked trait can attack with x2 boot blades, two claws, and a bite, all within the rules. That's five attacks, at first level, with no cheesing it in.
Right, that's fine, but now you can't move worth a lick because your blade boots are extended.
There is no "extra" attack, a 1st level changeling with the adopted/tusked trait can attack with x2 boot blades, two claws, and a bite, all within the rules. That's five attacks, at first level, with no cheesing it in.Right, that's fine, but now you can't move worth a lick because your blade boots are extended.
which is still less hindering than dropping your weapons.
At this rate I'm waiting on foot claws to show back up.
I see if you try take it to the next level, and hand swap a weapon, instead of drop it, you can get high up there and ridiculous. The weapon drop I have advocated did not have this in mind. Seriously, this was not an overpowering "cheese" idea, and I am a bit hurt with constant flame throwing. There is no "extra" attack, a 1st level changeling with the adopted/tusked trait can attack with x2 boot blades, two claws, and a bite, all within the rules. That's five attacks, at first level, with no cheesing it in. There is no rule breaking. I am not saying I can wield a 10ft pole in my arse, just drop some weapons.
I say I found a 5 dollar bill, you keep telling me not to lie about winning the lottery.
Sean's point wasn't that you can't find ways to get extra attacks. His point is that you shouldn't search for loopholes or ambiguous wording to gain extra attacks with the same limb and/or weapon.
It is perfectly fine to have a bite attack along with your sword attack. Unless you wield the sword in your teeth anyway. If you want to swing your sword with your right hand, then you need to follow the rules as intended and written and not get an additional attack with that limb unless your Base Attack allows for it (or other feat/ability).
Sean also didn't say it was overpowering. He said it was cheesy. It is a bit cheesy. It does give you a bit more power. It may not be overpowered, at least in the example you gave.
I would actually look at this situation from a different angle. The big limiter here (IMO) is the types of actions being used.
Getting more than one attack in a round requires a full-attack action requiring a full round action.
Dropping a weapon requires a free action.
So the question here is can you take a free action while performing a full round action or must you complete your full round action before being able to get your free(s)/swift action(s)?
so in regard to actions is it
swift + free(s) + full round
swift + full round + free(s)
full round + free(s) + swift
full round + swift + free(s)
free(s) + full round + swift
free(s) + swift + full round
To me I would not allow someone to take a separate action while they are performing another.
I would actually look at this situation from a different angle. The big limiter here (IMO) is the types of actions being used.
Getting more than one attack in a round requires a full-attack action requiring a full round action.
Dropping a weapon requires a free action.So the question here is can you take a free action while performing a full round action or must you complete your full round action before being able to get your free(s)/swift action(s)?
so in regard to actions is it
swift + free(s) + full round
swift + full round + free(s)
full round + free(s) + swift
full round + swift + free(s)
free(s) + full round + swift
free(s) + swift + full roundTo me I would not allow someone to take a separate action while they are performing another.
Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.
You could of spent the time to actually look it up
|
the Catoblepas
There you go, a fine example. Note: it has no "special ability" allowing it to attack this way either. It just does.
A 1st-level tengu using any weapon can have two attacks. A 2nd-level barbarian with the right rage powers can do so as well. A 1st-level abyssal sorcerer can strike out with armor spikes or his blade boot as well as two claws.
For someone who nitpicks rules so much, you're having a problem reading what I typed.
I'm not arguing that it's impossible to get multiple attacks per round at 1st level. I'm saying that you wouldn't let a 1st-level character attack with the sword in his right hand, and then make a second attack with that same sword in that same right hand. Yet, because of this free action drop loophole, the OP is suggesting that a character should be able to attack with the sword in his right hand, then drop that sword, then make another attack with that same right hand, whether a claw, unarmed strike, spiked gauntlet, whatever.
TLDR: If you can't right-hand-sword/right-hand-sword-again, and you can't right-hand-claw/right-hand-claw-again, the free-action-drop-so-my-hand-is-now-free loophole shouldn't allow you to right-hand-sword/right-hand-claw. And trying to interpret the wording of the rules to allow right-hand-sword/right-hand-claw is cheese.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There you go, a fine example. Note: it has no "special ability" allowing it to attack this way either. It just does.
And there are many, many things that monsters can do that characters can't do. Monsters are not characters.
There you go, a fine example. Note: it has no "special ability" allowing it to attack this way either. It just does.And there are many, many things that monsters can do that characters can't do. Monsters are not characters.
And this one gores with antlers, bites with a mouth...two separate parts of the body making the attack.
So the question here is can you take a free action while performing a full round action or must you complete your full round action before being able to get your free(s)/swift action(s)?
To me I would not allow someone to take a separate action while they are performing another.
Before you make that blanket statement, I want to point out that nocking an arrow counts as a free action. I'd bet that all DMs here allow archers to nock more than one arrow during an full-round attack :)
|
|
There you go, a fine example. Note: it has no "special ability" allowing it to attack this way either. It just does.And there are many, many things that monsters can do that characters can't do. Monsters are not characters.
Okay, I get it. Take a look at what I thought I was able to do, and tell me it's overpowered, or gamebreaking, or whatever, but tell me how.
I never said it was overpowered or gamebreaking. I said it was cheesy.
Could you attack with claws while wearing a cestus, but not using it?
Considering that it "covers the wielder from mid-finger to mid-forearm" and "your fingers are mostly exposed," it looks to me like your claws (assuming they grow out of the ends of your fingers, rather than something weird like palm-claws or wrist-claws) should be available when wearing a cestus, so you could either claw with your claws or punch with the cestus.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Could you attack with claws while wearing a cestus, but not using it?Considering that it "covers the wielder from mid-finger to mid-forearm" and "your fingers are mostly exposed," it looks to me like your claws (assuming they grow out of the ends of your fingers, rather than something weird like palm-claws or wrist-claws) should be available when wearing a cestus, so you could either claw with your claws or punch with the cestus.
Now I want a splat book with PALM CLAAAWWWWSSS!!!
You might want to ask your DM before dropping the concept entirely. He might think it's cool enough to allow, even if it's not correct by the rules.
For what it's worth, I would probably allow the concept of a character who attacks once with his weapons, and then drops the weapons and only attack with claws for the rest of the encounter.
But, I would be worried about what the resident power-gamer in the group might cook up for the next campaign, armed with that information.
Question for Sean, following up on a couple of posts above:
If a character has a bite attack and a gore attack (half orc trait or animal fury rage power, coupled with lesser fiend totem rage power), can he attack with both in the same round? Do horns and teeth count as seperate 'limbs' for the purposes of natural weapons?
The catoblepas suggests they can both be used, but as mentioned it might be an exception.
It's all the same head my friend.
Gore + Bite is an allowable combo by the rules, there are more than a few creatures with this combo. It seems to be the only exception to the one attack per limb.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
You're right, so a full attack action, (not counting weapons, which is something that should be figured out by your DM, as it is silly realistically, but *very* remotely possible mechanically) would grant you two armor attacks, at a +1/-4 (-5 for both assuming you do not have TWF) and a claw attack.
Forgive me, I'm late to the discussion, but where are you getting the -5? At first I assumed it had to do with adding the claw attack, but the "assuming you do not have TWF" bit (referring to the feat, or the mechanic?) made me unsure.
Hell wraith you could have cranked that far higher
The bestiary is correct. A dev stated it.
As for the damage I know I could have done better, but the point was to show the damage difference that martial weapons bring so I just made the an eidolon without giving the summoner any feats that would have improved the eidolon.
I figured doing that much better without trying, and with my first eidolon my point should get across.
Several posters have already shown that this is no more cheesy or game-breaking than attacking with spiked gauntlets/armor spikes/blade boots and natural attacks (though I still wouldn't allow it as it is clearly not RAI or RAW).
I see people have been skipping my post. Ignoring them does not make them invalid.
Maybe I accidentally cast invisibility on them again.
+1 to Ravingdork. Someone had to say that, and in retrospect I wonder why I didn't do it.
You and RD wearing the same blinders?
edit:fixed mistake
If you are going to quote my post, read all of it. The example had a +6 BAB, that's two attacks.You're right, so a full attack action, (not counting weapons, which is something that should be figured out by your DM, as it is silly realistically, but *very* remotely possible mechanically) would grant you two armor attacks, at a +1/-4 (-5 for both assuming you do not have TWF) and a claw attack. Using both natural weapons would come at a +1 +1, -4 for an Armor Spike attack.
His original example was correct for a +6 BAB character with armor spikes and 2 claw attacks. His attacks would be:
+6/+1 armor spikes, +1 claw, +1 claw.
You're attacking the wrong example, as that one is perfectly legal by RAW. It's the other example, the one with longsword, drop longsword, then use claws, that is wrong by RAW.
Edit: He's not using TWF at all in either example. TWF-penalties don't come into play.
I see if you try take it to the next level, and hand swap a weapon, instead of drop it, you can get high up there and ridiculous. The weapon drop I have advocated did not have this in mind. Seriously, this was not an overpowering "cheese" idea, and I am a bit hurt with constant flame throwing. There is no "extra" attack, a 1st level changeling with the adopted/tusked trait can attack with x2 boot blades, two claws, and a bite, all within the rules. That's five attacks, at first level, with no cheesing it in. There is no rule breaking. I am not saying I can wield a 10ft pole in my arse, just drop some weapons.
I say I found a 5 dollar bill, you keep telling me not to lie about winning the lottery.
Your interpretation of the rule-->a limb can be used as a natural attack and to weild a weapon in the same round, is what allowed the weapon swapping. It certainly does not deny it. SKR's and my interpretation shuts that nonsense down.
I will bold it this time-->Do you not understand that just because one person won't take advantage of a situation that it does not mean other people won't, and the rules are there to prevent that.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
My apologies, I misread my TWF feat scores, it is not a -5. Should be a -4/-8 since Armor Spikes are considered light. Again, assuming he has not taken TWF.You're right, so a full attack action, (not counting weapons, which is something that should be figured out by your DM, as it is silly realistically, but *very* remotely possible mechanically) would grant you two armor attacks, at a +1/-4 (-5 for both assuming you do not have TWF) and a claw attack.Forgive me, I'm late to the discussion, but where are you getting the -5? At first I assumed it had to do with adding the claw attack, but the "assuming you do not have TWF" bit (referring to the feat, or the mechanic?) made me unsure.
Okay, so adding natural attacks puts you into TWF territory then? I haven't had occasion to really read up on natural attacks, but I was under the impression they had their own rules/penalties. How sure are you on this? Or are you getting him into TWF some other way?
EDIT: Okay, looked up natural attacks in the Universal Monster Rules. I have no idea why you're applying TWF to this. There's nothing in there about modifying your weapon attacks when you also use natural attacks; just that you can't use a limb for both and that all natural attacks become "secondary".
a full attack action... would grant you two armor attacks, at a +1/-4 (-5 for both assuming you do not have TWF) and a claw attack. Using both natural weapons would come at a +1 +1, -4 for an Armor Spike attack.
What do you mean, youpeople?
1. There are no TWF penalties. At all. He's not using TWF, it's irrelevant.
2. The armor spikes don't use an arm, so they don't prevent attacking with his second claw.
He would get armor spike at +6 (full-BAB normal attack), a second armor spike at +1 (second iterative attack at BAB-5), and two claws, both of which are at +1 (because they become secondary natural attacks, BAB-5 and half strength).
If, instead of armor spikes, he used a sword, he could get sword +6, sword +1, and one claw at +1 (& half str).
At no point does two-weapon fighting apply here.
I removed a couple posts. You are typing words on the internet about how best to play a game. Even if you're trying to be funny, wishes of bodily harm and calling specific people idiots because they disagree with you are way out of line.
I removed a few more.
Okay, so adding natural attacks puts you into TWF territory then?
There's a very good chance he's referring to the incorrect fragment in the CRB which states your iterative attacks take TWF penalties when mixed with natural attacks.
It's been cited in this thread at least 3 times, and was a significant (if mistaken) part of the OP's argument for drop-claws.
To sum up:
The CRB erroneously states that you take TWF penalties when mixing iterative attacks (attacks via high BAB) with natural weapons. This is clarified in posts by James (cited earlier, and available at d20pfsrd.com) as a mistake, referring ONLY to the parts about TWF penalties.
This error does NOT apply to the rest of the paragraph, section, chapter, or book. The CRB rules about making an attack with a natural weapon and manufactured weapon on the same limb still apply.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Okay, so adding natural attacks puts you into TWF territory then?There's a very good chance he's referring to the incorrect fragment in the CRB which states your iterative attacks take TWF penalties when mixed with natural attacks.
I saw no such reference in the UMR in the PRD. Where was it? Has it since been removed?
I saw no such reference in the UMR in the PRD. Where was it? Has it since been removed?
Yes, the line was removed in one of the CRB-erratas; I don't remember which one.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I saw no such reference in the UMR in the PRD. Where was it? Has it since been removed?Yes, the line was removed in one of the CRB-erratas; I don't remember which one.
Okay. So having now read the natural attack rules a couple of times (and already being familiar with weapon attacks), am I correct in understanding the question to be simply whether or not you can "re-use" an arm by using a weapon attack and then dropping the weapon to use a claw, producing the same final result as if you'd used a weapon that didn't use an arm? Based on the below rule?
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).
So I'm guessing the contention is centered around either the word "often", or the fact that by the time the creature would use a claw attack, that limb is no longer "clutching" a weapon?
Is that where it stands?
I saw no such reference in the UMR in the PRD. Where was it? Has it since been removed?
The Universal Monster Rules are from the Bestiary. They are updated and correct. There is still incorrect text in the Core Rulebook, which is in conflict with the Bestiary.
What I'm talking about is here:
CRB - Combat chapter - Natural Attacks - Third paragraph, fourth through sixth sentences: "In addition, all of your attacks made with melee weapons and unarmed strikes are made as if you were two-weapon fighting. Your natural attacks are treated as light, off-hand weapons for determining the penalty to your other attacks. Feats such as Two-Weapon Fighting and Multiattack can reduce these penalties."
Why it's gone:
Check out This post by PathfinderEspañol and the reply from James Jacobs. Those lines were bolded in PFE's post, and are what James is talking about when he says "the bolded part of the post above is wrong."
Is that where it stands?
Yes. Well, except SKR has already said the proposed action doesn't work :)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I saw no such reference in the UMR in the PRD. Where was it? Has it since been removed?The Universal Monster Rules are from the Bestiary. They are updated and correct. There is still incorrect text in the Core Rulebook, which is in conflict with the Bestiary.
What I'm talking about is here:
CRB - Combat chapter - Natural Attacks - Third paragraph, fourth through sixth sentences: "In addition, all of your attacks made with melee weapons and unarmed strikes are made as if you were two-weapon fighting. Your natural attacks are treated as light, off-hand weapons for determining the penalty to your other attacks. Feats such as Two-Weapon Fighting and Multiattack can reduce these penalties."
Why it's gone:
Check out This post by PathfinderEspañol and the reply from James Jacobs. Those lines were bolded in PFE's post, and are what James is talking about when he says "the bolded part of the post above is wrong."
Hm... So that means that this...
...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.
...is still in. Which means Drop-Claw doesn't work.
EDIT: And apparently SKR agrees. So, case closed, right?