Claws and weapon drop.


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 212 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

As one can drop a weapon as a free action, can one attack with a held weapon, then attack with claws?


My answer is to ask your GM as this is a very grey area. I would allow it assuming you follow the high to low attack rules. Meaning that you have to make the claw after your first weapon attack and would have to have a way to get the weapon back to make any further attacks.

The Exchange

no


Talonhawke wrote:
My answer is to ask your GM as this is a very grey area. I would allow it assuming you follow the high to low attack rules. Meaning that you have to make the claw after your first weapon attack and would have to have a way to get the weapon back to make any further attacks.

The answer here is a Weapon Cord. Alternatively, if you're specialized in a weapon that doesn't fill your claw hands (Unarmed Strikes and Armor Spikes come to mind, though there may be others) then you don't have to drop anything.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

You can already drop a weapon, and quick draw another, and attack with it. I do not see this being a problem, but checking it out does not hurt. I wonder if this is basis to be able to attack with a cestus, and a claw, using the same hand.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

No, not drop a cestus, simply use it as well, as the claw. You can use two different weapons, with the same hand, it would make sense that you could use a fingerless spiked glove, as well as the claws upon said fingers, in the same round.


Frankly, I'd refrain from mix-and-matching natural and weapon attacks that use the same limb in a single turn.

Did an attack (or a series of strikes) with your weapon and dropped it? Great. You're already at (or above) the limit for your number of natural attacks with that limb (being exactly one attack).

Did an attack with your natural weapon? Great. This concludes your use of that limb for the current round.

Anything else either opens the possibility of getting too many attacks, attacks at too high bonuses, or a full-size nightmare of re-calculating bonuses.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

The rules note being unable to attack while grasping a weapon or object. As long as the limb is doing neither, I see no need to limit the attacks. One natural attack per limb, one weapon attack as BAB allows. That is the rules, and there is no balance issue either.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
The rules note being unable to attack while grasping a weapon or object. As long as the limb is doing neither, I see no need to limit the attacks. One natural attack per limb, one weapon attack as BAB allows. That is the rules, and there is no balance issue either.

As in:

Four-Clawed Fury (STR 18, BAB+13, Multiweapon Fighting, Multiattack) delivering

Longsword +15/+9/+5 (1d8+4), plus 3 x Shortsword +15 (1d6+2), plus (dropping all weapons as free actions, so the clawed hands are not wielding anything at the time) 4 x Claw +15 (1d6+2), plus Bite +15 (1d6+2)?

Thanks, but no thanks.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

How do you get four claws?

The Exchange

blackbloodtroll wrote:
How do you get four claws?

4 is nothing it could go much farther. No, that limb is used for the round accept that and move on.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/rules-for-monsters/universal-monster-rules #TOC-Natural-Attacks
No clutching, no restriction.

The Exchange

Rule intentions be damned munchkin up the wording as much as you can proudly. THIS is why i could not stomach many board crawlers. I mean christ man 3.5 never SAID humans were humanoid so they were immune to things that effect humanoids right???

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

No munchkin. I could have boot blade or armor spikes. Same amount of attacks, but without the need to drop weapons. There is little on the side against this, although if evidence proofs otherwise...


From the Bestiary - Universal Monster Rules:

"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).

Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their available natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack’s original type."

So to the OP's question:

I would say yes, but only if you would be eligible to multiple attacks because of a high BAB...


Beastman wrote:

From the Bestiary - Universal Monster Rules:

"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).

Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their available natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack’s original type."

So to the OP's question:

I would say yes, but only if you would be eligible to multiple attacks because of a high BAB...

Same.

And I would add this:
With the claw attack suffering a -5 penalty (regardless of the Multiattack feat, if present), or -10/-15 if the character made two/three weapon attacks before dropping it. Plus, if the penalties are equal to or greater than the character's base attack bonus, no claw attack can be made. Thus, if you have +5 BAB or less (thus no more than one weapon attack per round), you cannot use the claw. With +6 to +10 you can do it; with +11 to +15 you can attack twice with weapon and one with claw (or just one with weapon and one with claw with -5 to hit, rather than -10), and so on.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Wait, if I have a BAB of +6, I can attack with boot blade, armor spikes, then claw, and claw. Now I do the same thing, let's say longsword, dagger, drop both, then claw, and claw, I am breaking the rules? How does this break anything? Why would I need extra rules, extra penalties? If there is errata or such that now contradicts this, then let me know.


Astral Wanderer wrote:
Beastman wrote:

From the Bestiary - Universal Monster Rules:

"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).

Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their available natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack’s original type."

So to the OP's question:

I would say yes, but only if you would be eligible to multiple attacks because of a high BAB...

Same.

And I would add this:
With the claw attack suffering a -5 penalty (regardless of the Multiattack feat, if present), or -10/-15 if the character made two/three weapon attacks. Plus, if the penalties are equal to or greater than the character's base attack bonus, no claw attack can be made. Thus, if you have +5 BAB or less (thus no more than one weapon attack per round), you cannot use the claw. With +6 to +10 you can do it; with +11 to +15 you can attack twice with weapon and one with claw (or just one with weapon and one with claw with -5 to hit, rather than -10), and so on.

I think this is a no brainer.

for·go/fôrˈgō/
Verb:
Omit or decline to take (something pleasant or valuable); go without.
Refrain from.
Synonyms:
renounce - forego - relinquish - waive - resign
More info »Dictionary.com - Answers.com - Merriam-Webster - The Free Dictionary

I can hear the player in my group asking about this, I even know who would be stupid enough to try it, "Wait, but it says you forgo natural attacks with the limb that's clutching the weapon, if I drop the weapon, I'm no longer clutching it and therefore can attack with it later in the round!"

If you forgo an attack, you can't take it back later in the round. You've already decided not to take that attack. You LOST that attack (actually, you voluntarily refrained from taking it, so it wasn't lost).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

If that be so, then could one simply claw, the quick draw a weapon, then attack with it. As long as the right conditions are met, why does it matter which happens first? There is no extra attack beyond what is already available, why would it be denied?


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Wait, if I have a BAB of +6, I can attack with boot blade, armor spikes, then claw, and claw. Now I do the same thing, let's say longsword, dagger, drop both, then claw, and claw, I am breaking the rules? How does this break anything? Why would I need extra rules, extra penalties? If there is errata or such that now contradicts this, then let me know.

If you want to take three feats (or a level of a class that gets martial weapon prof's free and one feat) just so you can use two crappy extra weapons (1d6 x2, and 1d4 x2... Woohoo) and then make all of your natural weapons -5 to hit (or -2 with multiattack feat) with half your strength bonus, be my guest. In fact, I would encourage it. Call it law of natural PC selection.

blackbloodtroll wrote:
If that be so, then could one simply claw, the quick draw a weapon, then attack with it. As long as the right conditions are met, why does it matter which happens first? There is no extra attack beyond what is already available, why would it be denied?

No.

I honestly don't know why I'm arguing about this. Any DM who would allow this should turn his DM license in at the office.

If you give up your natural attack to use a weapon in a limb, then the reverse typically will hold as well. If you make a natural attack then you forgo all weapon attacks in that limb that round.

Munchkining like this is why I took the time to get my rules lawyering degree in the first place. Gotta nip this kinda stuff in the bud early as a GM, and munchkins don't tend to let things stand at "because I said so."

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I hear the term munchkin a lot. What does it mean to you? This is not Pun-Pun. Look at it this way: You can wear a gauntlet, wield a weapon with that hand, attack with it, drop it, then attack with the gauntlet. Insert claw instead of gauntlet, and that should work as well, right?

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

You only get one attack with a limb unless you have iterative attacks, and those don't apply to natural weapons. So you could claw or use a weapon but not both in the same round with the same limb.

If you had a boot blade then you would be able to kick as a weapon without penalty and make additional claw attacks as well, but all natural attacks would be at -5 and half strength damage. I don't think the extra attack from the boot would justify itself. If you go natural weapon, your best bet is to get as many as possible, such as two claws and a bite.

In theory a ranger barbarian with natural weapon style, animal fury rage power and lesser fiend totem rage power could get claw, claw, bite, gore, but the bite and the gore both use the head, so that would be a grey area... They'd all be primary though if he got them all.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

blackbloodtroll wrote:
I hear the term munchkin a lot. What does it mean to you? This is not Pun-Pun. Look at it this way: You can wear a gauntlet, wield a weapon with that hand, attack with it, drop it, then attack with the gauntlet. Insert claw instead of gauntlet, and that should work as well, right?

No, you can only attack with weapon and then gauntlet (in the same hand) as iterative attacks. You can't use natural weapons with iterative attacks so a claw is not the same as a gauntlet.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Well, without errata, I guess dm fiat is all I have.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
I hear the term munchkin a lot. What does it mean to you?
Wikipedia wrote:

Munchkin (role-playing games)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Munchkin (disambiguation).

In gaming, a Munchkin is a player who plays what is intended to be a non-competitive game (usually a role-playing game) in an aggressively competitive manner. A munchkin seeks within the context of the game to amass the greatest power, score the most "kills", and grab the most loot, no matter how deleterious their actions are to role-playing, the storyline, fairness, logic, or the other players' fun. The term is used almost exclusively as a pejorative and frequently is used in reference to powergamers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munchkin_(role-playing_games)


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Well, without errata, I guess dm fiat is all I have.

Why would they errata what is already clear in the rules?

Natural Attacks: "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."


Grick wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Well, without errata, I guess dm fiat is all I have.

Why would they errata what is already clear in the rules?

Natural Attacks: "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."

The d20pfsrd words it differently. This is much clearer. Going to start using this website too. I love having multiple sources by which to win arguments against my powergaming players.


Skallycap wrote:
The d20pfsrd words it differently. This is much clearer.

It's not the site, it's the chapter. Someone upthread quoted the Bestiary rule, I quoted the rule from the combat chapter of CRB.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Bestiary is correct on natural attacks, core is not. There is no powergaming here by the way, and am in no way competitive in my tabletop gaming. There is no power problem here. I tend to like, out of the way concepts for characters, and have often been my various dm's confidante. This is so like the "hands" issue that was put forth on two-weapon fighting, which I was right about (sorry irrelevant, and gloating). There is no reason to disallow this, other than misunderstanding the reasons to do so.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Bestiary is correct on natural attacks, core is not.

This line: "In addition, all of your attacks made with melee weapons and unarmed strikes are made as if you were two-weapon fighting." is in error, but that does not invalidate the rest of the section.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Wait, if I have a BAB of +6, I can attack with boot blade, armor spikes, then claw, and claw. Now I do the same thing, let's say longsword, dagger, drop both, then claw, and claw, I am breaking the rules? How does this break anything? Why would I need extra rules, extra penalties? If there is errata or such that now contradicts this, then let me know.

Once an appendage has been used to weild a manufactured weapon it can not be used as a natural attack. That is the intent anyway. Finding a loophole in the wording does not change that.

Boot blade and armor spikes are not as good at being weapons as longswords, and daggers are. Armor spikes, as an example,are for the most part not assumed to be someone's primary weapons. Can you design a charcter around it? Sure you can.

Rearming the boot blade is also a full round action so it is not beneficial to use it over the dagger or longsword.

It also makes normal terrain into difficult terrain.
The armor spikes are also only designed to work on grapple attacks.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Grick wrote:


This line: "In addition, all of your attacks made with melee weapons and unarmed strikes are made as if you were two-weapon fighting." is in error, but that does not invalidate the rest of the section.

I don't think it's in error. If you fight with weapon and fist, you're treated as fighting with two weapons, so -2/-2 with TWF. If you fight with weapon and claw you're treated as weapon and natural attack, so 0/-5 without feats. Unarmed strikes seem to be an exception to the natural attack rule.

Claws are not unarmed strikes and wouldn't be affected by that paragraph in the CRB, by RAW at least.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Just an addendum: I'm pretty sure you can get iterative attacks with an unarmed strike, but you can't with a claw.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Speaking of unarmed strikes, you can punch, kick, and use claws. Just saying.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

blackbloodtroll wrote:
Speaking of unarmed strikes, you can punch, kick, and use claws. Just saying.

I know that makes sense logically, but in rules terms unarmed strikes are always weapons when determining attacks, they're not natural weapons.

CRB p141 (Equipment) under light weapons:

"An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon."

Natural attacks don't get an entry as they don't follow the same rules.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Stormfriend wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Speaking of unarmed strikes, you can punch, kick, and use claws. Just saying.

I know that makes sense logically, but in rules terms unarmed strikes are always weapons when determining attacks, they're not natural weapons.

CRB p141 (Equipment) under light weapons:

"An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon."

Natural attacks don't get an entry as they don't follow the same rules.

I know, I am just saying you could punch, and claw, with the same hand.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

blackbloodtroll wrote:


I know, I am just saying you could punch, and claw, with the same hand.

If an unarmed strike counts as a weapon then you can't also make a natural attack with the same limb, as discussed earlier.


Stormfriend wrote:
I don't think it's in error. If you fight with weapon and fist, you're treated as fighting with two weapons, so -2/-2 with TWF. If you fight with weapon and claw you're treated as weapon and natural attack, so 0/-5 without feats. Unarmed strikes seem to be an exception to the natural attack rule.

It's in error as it disagrees with the bestiary.

CRB: "In addition, all of your attacks made with melee weapons and unarmed strikes are made as if you were two-weapon fighting."

Bestiary: "Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack's original type."

Your iterative attacks are not penalized by TWF rules when you make natural attacks. (Unless you are TWF with the melee weapons)

Unarmed Strike: "Unarmed strikes do not count as natural weapons"

-edit- Here's the citation


blackbloodtroll wrote:
I know, I am just saying you could punch, and claw, with the same hand.

Maybe some bold will help.

Natural Attacks: "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."

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Stormfriend wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:


I know, I am just saying you could punch, and claw, with the same hand.
If an unarmed strike counts as a weapon then you can't also make a natural attack with the same limb, as discussed earlier.

As of yet defined as RAW, in fact, you are not clutching a thing, which would prevent you from making the claw attack as per rules.

Scarab Sages

blackbloodtroll wrote:
No, not drop a cestus, simply use it as well, as the claw. You can use two different weapons, with the same hand, it would make sense that you could use a fingerless spiked glove, as well as the claws upon said fingers, in the same round.

There are rules in place barring you from making a natural attack from limb already used in an attack.

Also, claw attacks made outside your regular iterative attacks will be classified as secondary; they receive a -5 to hit and only get 1/2 strength.

You want to see the full range of limitations on mixing natural and manufactured weapons, go read the synthesist FAQ.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Stormfriend wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:


I know, I am just saying you could punch, and claw, with the same hand.
If an unarmed strike counts as a weapon then you can't also make a natural attack with the same limb, as discussed earlier.
As of yet defined as RAW, in fact, you are not clutching a thing, which would prevent you from making the claw attack as per rules.

You can uanrmed strike with any part of the body, and it does the same damage.

Which part you use is just flavor really. It only matters if you use something like a cestus in which case the question would then have to be asked "do you really think the rules intended for the cestus to have that advantage when a dagger does not"?

Contributor

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Why are you trying to cheese the system?


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Why are you trying to cheese the system?

Why is the system YOU worked on cheesable? :P

(I couldn't help it man, the opportunity was too good [I don't even know what your involvement was]. sorry lol)

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Why are you trying to cheese the system?

Why is it cheese? I am not doing anything power level breaking, or even something hard to imagine being done. I was sure there was no game breaking or mind breaking here. If I am wrong, tell me how and why. I can accept a reasonable response.

Scarab Sages

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Why are you trying to cheese the system?

Think of it as an opportunity to generate an official FAQ clarifying the mixing of natural and manufactured weapons. Take your time, make it cheese proof.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

By the way, this is the first time a developer has commented on any thread of mine. Love your guy's work.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Why are you trying to cheese the system?

SKR is my hero. :)

Sean you might want to start law school so you can learn to write rules in legalese. ;)


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Why are you trying to cheese the system?
Why is it cheese? I am not doing anything power level breaking, or even something hard to imagine being done. I was sure there was no game breaking or mind breaking here. If I am wrong, tell me how and why. I can accept a reasonable response.

The RAW does often give great hints at the intent of a rule. Look at my dagger vs cestus post as an example.

The intent of the rule was to not use a limb that is a natural attack to also be able to wield a manufactured weapon in the same round.

In short if you plan to use a tentacle/claw/slam attack then you were not intended to use any other weapon with that same limb such as a dagger, cestus, and so on. The word "clutched" is used because most weapons are held.

PS:I guess it was not "in short" since it was longer. :)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

What about a slam? Can you not use an unarmed strike, or armor spikes because that uses the "body" limb? Nevermind, sometimes it makes sense, but has no place in the rules, or maybe it does, and it just makes no sense.

1 to 50 of 212 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Claws and weapon drop. All Messageboards