RAW, they currently are not proficient with them. This includes Natural Weapons Rangers with Aspect of the Beast and Feral Mutagen alchemists.
There is no general rule about this, which means that unless the ability says you are proficient, you are not proficient with them, unless your race gave you them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are not rules saying breathing is a free action... now you must use a standard action or hold your breath EVERY ROUND!!!
You are proficient with your own natural weapons if you possess them. If you gain a class ability that gives you natural weapons outside of unarmed strikes, you are proficient in them.
Where do the rules state that?
|
You are proficient with your own natural weapons if you possess them. If you gain a class ability that gives you natural weapons outside of unarmed strikes, you are proficient in them.Where do the rules state that?
Where do the rules state that it doesn't?
EDIT: I'm not supporting either side, but as far as rules go, you seem to be working from a baseless point.
You are proficient with your own natural weapons if you possess them. If you gain a class ability that gives you natural weapons outside of unarmed strikes, you are proficient in them.Where do the rules state that?
I think I saw James Jacobs say a while ago that it wasn't in the rules because it was supposed to be obvious.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Where do the rules state that?I think I saw James Jacobs say a while ago that it wasn't in the rules because it was supposed to be obvious.
Because it is obvious.
Also, thread is a duplicate thread AND it belongs in the rules forum, not under PFS.
Spamming multiple forums with the same question is in bad taste.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cheapy's point stems from the following:
"All characters are proficient with unarmed strikes and any natural weapons possessed by their race."
He's making the argument that if the natural attack isn't part of the racial description, it falls out of this statement, and thus hasn't been covered. It's a new version of the "Monks aren't proficient with unarmed strikes" argument.
For the sake of discussion, let's assume that a non-racial natural attack doesn't fall into the "All characters...." rule. What happens?
"A character who uses a weapon with which he is not proficient takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls."
Oops. It looks like Fighter Fred isn't proficient with this particular part of his body because Mommy doesn't have one. (Anyone who has ever cleaned a public men's restroom knows this is true in real life, too.)
Counter Arguments:
"Most creatures possess one or more natural attacks (attacks made without a weapon)."
Let's see: 1) Fred isn't proficient with that part of his body; 2) The penalty for using weapon you aren't proficient with is to attack at -4; 3) Fred's body part is a natural attack, which by definition means that it isn't a weapon; 4) While we agree (as does Fred's loudmouth ex-girlfriend, Brianna Bard...maybe Fred shouldn't have gone on that 3-day weekend "adventure" with Betty Barbarian) that Fred isn't proficient with all of his body parts, non-proficiency penalties only apply to weapons, a set of objects of which his body part isn't a member.
Let's Try Another:
If one makes the argument that Fred's lack of proficiency with his body parts isn't merely a subject of derision in Brianna's latest hit single "The Ballad of Fumbling Fred, or, the Swordsman Who Wasn't," clearly what Fred needs is Natural Attack Proficiency (Specified Body Part) as a feat. Except there is no such feat. Apparently, it was viewed as unnecessary. Maybe, because "...possessed by their race," coupled as it is with unarmed strike, also known as The-Actor-Who-Originated-The-Role, is intended to be interpreted rather broadly.
1)I'm aware that Natural Weapon and Natural Attack are both used in some of this language and am choosing to ignore that for the purpose of effect. I will leave it to others to search amid the strands of desiccated coconut husk fiber for something meaningful regarding the distinction.
2) While my tone may come off as dismissive, I think that there is value to these sorts of discussions in this forum. The likelihood that eyes will be rolled or low voices will mutter, "oh, brother..." doesn't take away from that.
3) I hope no one takes offense from the style of humor offered above.
Noted! Sorry.
Fwiw, it seems like the PFS and PFRPG forums have only a little cross over in communities, and I figured that a post there too would be helpful. Perhaps I was a little too excited after a long day at work.
And no. No one seems to see where the problem is. Druids are called out as being proficient with their natural attacks in Wildshape. Razortusk calls out the bite as being proficient.
Yes, it's obvious. But in a certain organized play group where RAW is king, we have some text saying certain abilities grant natural attacks *and* proficiency, and some that just give natural attacks. And since the druid was called out in the CRB as being proficient with natural weapons gained from her class ability, that seems to be what sets the precedent. What are we lead to think here?
|
|
What are we lead to think here?
That it is an unintentional gap, or a gap that thought by the developers to be covered by the general rule about racial proficiency for natural weapons. Would a clarification be helpful? Yes, in the same way as PF went out of its way to specify proficiency for a monk's unarmed strike.
What's the alternative? That the developers said, "Hey, I know! Let's give these natural attacks, but make sure that the user isn't proficient and never can be! That'll be a class everyone will want and it will sell lots of books, too!"
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
You should be led to believe that PFRPG while nice, has some inconsistencies in style that don't necessarily mean anything aside from that. In some places they have some redundant text, in others they don't. They are working on standardizing this sort of thing, but at the time it wasn't. Chalk it up to growing pains.
Because it is obvious.Where do the rules state that?I think I saw James Jacobs say a while ago that it wasn't in the rules because it was supposed to be obvious.
When delving into the rules and things like this it is my opinion that things that are left up to the implied or obvious tend to get misinterpreted.
Implied? Kind of. Obvious? To some.
IMO, there should be some small line of text somewhere that states if you gain a natural attack, you gain proficiency with them. Just to clear things up. Maybe even a line that says all characters are proficient with natural attacks (if they have them).
Because it is obvious.Where do the rules state that?I think I saw James Jacobs say a while ago that it wasn't in the rules because it was supposed to be obvious.
When delving into the rules and things like this it is my opinion that things that are left up to the implied or obvious tend to get misinterpreted.
Implied? Kind of. Obvious? To some.
IMO, there should be some small line of text somewhere that states if you gain a natural attack, you gain proficiency with them. Just to clear things up.
Agreed it seems like the most obvious nonrules to the Dev's create the biggest forum wars when brought up because it's so obvious to everyone in there own way.
it seems like the most obvious nonrules to the Dev's create the biggest forum wars
I think there are quite a few who would agree about this.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
APG has been out for ~16 months now and hundreds (thousands) tons of people have made alchemist using these rules and 99.9999% of them have figured out that yes indeed you get proficiency. Almost every single one of them (until now) did so without prompting from the forums.
The fact that it took this long for someone to discover this 'problem' speaks for itself.
When the overwhelming majority of people make the same assumption that is sort of the definition of obvious.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Come on guys, this is useless. Of course you are proficient with natural weapons. It doesn't have to say so because it isn't necessary to. It's granted.
And, seriously, someone SHOW ME an entry for a class ability, spell or creature, that indicates one way or the other that you are or are not proficient. I don't think it exists. Again, it doesn't have to. 99%+ of players have never brought this up before because there's no reason to.
All this thread can do is spread misinformation and guarantee that somebody gets the wrong idea and we all end up doing this again.
And, seriously, someone SHOW ME an entry for a class ability, spell or creature, that indicates one way or the other that you are or are not proficient.
Druid's wildshape says they are
Both of these point out that you are proficient with them.
And, seriously, someone SHOW ME an entry for a class ability, spell or creature, that indicates one way or the other that you are or are not proficient.Druid's wildshape says they are
Both of these point out that you are proficient with them.
I appreciate that. Thanks.
The point is still moot. Of course you are proficient with your own natural attacks.
The point is still moot. Of course you are proficient with your own natural attacks.
This is implied, but not spelled out. Actually, the existence of Talon's citations prove that this is not the case in the Rules.
When the overwhelming majority of people make the same assumption that is sort of the definition of obvious.
Err.. not everyone is on the forums so you can't be sure the majority of folks arent having trouble with this.
While I do think its obscure, stranger things have been found in the rules before. They are a living document that is constantly being updated, this is no different.
I agree that the intent is obvious, but I also agree that this does need to be clarified in the rules, as the Druid/Razortusk thing shows that normally you would not be proficient.
I don't know why people are acting like an obvious RAI is actually RAW. At least, without the evidence to back it up as RAW.
You found a three year old thread but didn't look for a FAQ?