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?
Yes.
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?
Not really.
The Core Rulebook plainly states that a different limb is used for each attack.
The Bestiary says what you quoted.
BBT was saying that, since the CRB was incorrect about the TWF penalties, it's also incorrect about using different limbs for each attack. And by eliminating the CRB rules, all he has is the Bestiary rules, which he wants to avoid by dropping a weapon (or using a cestus) and thus not "clutching" a weapon, thus being able to use the same limb to make a natural attack and attack with a manufactured weapon.
We have a situation where the RAW does not agree with RAI, and the dev has clarified RAI. In short the best thing to do is show the RAW and RAI to the GM.
The only part that is incorrect in the CRB to my knowledge are the TWF rules applying to natural attacks. The rest is still valid.
BBT's use of the combination is not gamebreaking IMHO, but his desire to ignore the intention of the rule, and focus on the word "clutch" can be, which I have already shown.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
We have a situation where the RAW does not agree with RAI, and the dev has clarified RAI. In short the best thing to do is show the RAW and RAI to the GM.
No, we have a situation where the Bestiary RAW does not agree with the CRB RAW. That's very different from RAW vs RAI. PCs must abide by the CRB, not the Bestiary.
The only part that is incorrect in the CRB to my knowledge are the TWF rules applying to natural attacks. The rest is still valid.
BBT's use of the combination is not gamebreaking IMHO, but his desire to ignore the intention of the rule, and focus on the word "clutch" can be, which I have already shown.
The CRB doesn't talk about "clutching" and explicitly prohibits using the same limb for a weapon attack and a natural attack. So there you go.
We have a situation where the RAW does not agree with RAI, and the dev has clarified RAI. In short the best thing to do is show the RAW and RAI to the GM.No, we have a situation where the Bestiary RAW does not agree with the CRB RAW. That's very different from RAW vs RAI. PCs must abide by the CRB, not the Bestiary.
The CRB doesn't talk about "clutching" and explicitly prohibits using the same limb for a weapon attack and a natural attack. So there you go.The only part that is incorrect in the CRB to my knowledge are the TWF rules applying to natural attacks. The rest is still valid.
BBT's use of the combination is not gamebreaking IMHO, but his desire to ignore the intention of the rule, and focus on the word "clutch" can be, which I have already shown.
The devs have already said the bestiary was correct. That is old news. When it will be errata'd is beyond me though. In any case the fact that an intention to errata makes intent rather clear.
PC's are not beholden to the CRB more than the bestiary. All characters follow the same rules unless they have a reason(feat/other special ability) that allows them to break those rules.
We do agree that BBT is incorrect which is all that really matters since the CRB RAW and SKR agree.
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.
Overall, I'm inclined to agree with you. I was mostly just disappointed with the way you so dismissively entered the thread.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Did this concept really deserve more?
No concept deserves derisive dismissiveness.
It's one thing to state that you don't think an idea would (or should) work and the reasons why. It's another to use possibly derogatory/demeaning terms such as min/maxer, munchkin, rules lawyer, or cheese. Often times, such terms aren't any better than "stupid," "idiot," or "doodoo head."
It's a matter of being polite and respectful, which is a rule on these forums if I recall. Last I checked, the developers were not exempt.
I removed some posts. Let it go.
Did this concept really deserve more?No concept deserves derisive dismissiveness.
It's one thing to state that you don't think an idea would (or should) work and the reasons why. It's another to use possibly derogatory/demeaning terms such as min/maxer, munchkin, rules lawyer, or cheese. Often times, such terms aren't any better than "stupid," "idiot," or "doodoo head."
It's a matter of being polite and respectful, which is a rule on these forums if I recall. Last I checked, the developers were not exempt.
Lately there has been a good number of cheese type things going on. Sean probably assumed that is what was going on, and he called it as he saw it, even if he saw it incorrectly.
I don't think it is impolite to call something cheese if that is what you think it is. I certainly don't know a nice way to say it.
edit:He wasn't dismissing the concept. He was dismissing the idea that someone is overlooking intent to bypass rule.
