To be honest, I never thought about it.
I would certainly rule that you ARE proficient with the claws.
The only rule I could find regarding proficiency with natural attacks in the Core Rulebook is under the Equipment chapter.
Simple, Martial, and Exotic Weapons: Anybody but a druid, monk, or wizard is proficient with all simple weapons. Barbarians, fighters, paladins, and rangers are proficient with all simple and all martial weapons. Characters of other classes are proficient with an assortment of simple weapons and possibly some martial or even exotic weapons. All characters are proficient with unarmed strikes and any natural weapons possessed by their race. A character who uses a weapon with which he is not proficient takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls.
Emphasis mine.
So it looks like no, a draconic sorcerer is not proficient with their claws in most cases (since claws aren't a natural weapon possessed by most player races). I would, like above, allow it that they are in my games, but it looks like rules would disagree with me.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Common sense says you are proficient with your claws.
Why? Because the power doesn't need to be even more useless than it is already.
I'm waiting for someone to say that you can't cross a street because there's no rule mechanic for doing so in the books.
Shows what you know. There are no rules for streets, thus there's nothing to cross.
:P
Jackalope, you would argue that the claws are not possessed by the sorcerer? Or is it that you would argue that a sorcerer is no longer a member of their race?
Of course this nonproficiency question goes for Witches, Alchemists, and Barbarians that achieve their claws and or bites from their class abilities.
I think that the rules applied has something to say about this. Is there any character in print that gets claws or a natural attack from their class and not their race and is NOT proficient in them? I can guarantee that you can't. They are assumed to be proficient.
How about Hero Labs? Do they apply a non proficient penalty? No.
In fact I think you will find that stating that the character is proficient is the exception rather than the rule, and you have to ask the question why. I will tell you. The druid actually takes other shapes of other species rather than altering their own bodies like the rest of these abilities do.
Also, here is what the claws actually say.
Claws (Su): Starting at 1st level, you can grow claws as a free action. These claws are treated as natural weapons, allowing you to make two claw attacks as a full attack action using your full base attack bonus.
Emphasis mine.
There is no mention of nonproficiency or penalties to hit, so the simple meaning is that they use their BAB + Str to hit, and they get two attacks during a full attack action.
Why make something more complicated than it already is?
@ Oterisk: Non-proficiency doesn't reduce your BAB, it applies a penalty to your attack roll, unless you also want to argue that you can't gain a bonus from flanking with that line of reasoning. The claws are not a natural weapon of your race, you do not have them because you are a half-elf/human/whatever. You don't appear to be proficient by the rules. Other classes and sources many times call out that you become proficient with natural weapons gained through abilities, draconic sorcerer does not. I already agreed that they should be proficient, believe that the intent is that they are proficient, and would allow to be in my games should anyone ever actually play a dragon sorcerer, but just looking at the rules it doesn't seem so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The claws are not a natural weapon of your race, you do not have them because you are a half-elf/human/whatever.
Are they natural weapons? Yes.
Are these natural weapons possessed by the sorcerer? Yes.
Is the sorcerer a part of his race? Yes.
Are there others of his race which possess natural weapons including his direct ancestors? Yes.
Does his race then possess certain natural weapons? Yes.
Are they proficient with any natural weapons they possess? Yes.
Is possession nine tenths of the law? Yes.
I'm done.
I'm waiting for someone to say that you can't cross a street because there's no rule mechanic for doing so in the books.Shows what you know. There are no rules for streets, thus there's nothing to cross.
:P
*locates the rule for Raving Dork and erases every copy out of existence*
Poof!
Don't worry I have memorized that rule. You shall exist until I fall to Alzheimer.
Considering some of the Dork's posts, I suspect that you've shunted your alzheimer's by passing some of it to him.Don't worry I have memorized that rule. You shall exist until I fall to Alzheimer.I'm waiting for someone to say that you can't cross a street because there's no rule mechanic for doing so in the books.Shows what you know. There are no rules for streets, thus there's nothing to cross.
:P
*locates the rule for Raving Dork and erases every copy out of existence*
Poof!
RD makes my night every time i log on to the forums.
The claws are not a natural weapon of your race, you do not have them because you are a half-elf/human/whatever.Are they natural weapons? Yes.
Are these natural weapons possessed by the sorcerer? Yes.
Is the sorcerer a part of his race? Yes.
Are there others of his race which possess natural weapons including his direct ancestors? Yes.
Does his race then possess certain natural weapons? Yes.
Are they proficient with any natural weapons they possess? Yes.
Is possession nine tenths of the law? Yes.
I'm done.
I possess a staff of fire. I am human. I do not naturally have my staff of fire. I had to obtain it (like obtaining claws through use of a class ability). Staves of fire are not a trait possessed by human simply because I now own one. If the clause (see what I did there?) "...possessed by their race" is meaningless why include it? Why not say "you are proficient with your natural weapons" and just end there?
Are sorcerers supposed to be considered proficient with their claws? Probably.
Will every GM ever, including me, say they are? Most certainly.
Are they by a strict reading of the rules? No.
I am favoring stance that any ability or spell that provides specific* character with attack it always grants proficiency with that attack form unless noted otherwise.
*i.e. only the designated target can use it - as opposed to spells and abilities that create weapons/attacks that anyone can use.
RD makes my night every time i log on to the forums.Considering some of the Dork's posts, I suspect that you've shunted your alzheimer's by passing some of it to him.Don't worry I have memorized that rule. You shall exist until I fall to Alzheimer.I'm waiting for someone to say that you can't cross a street because there's no rule mechanic for doing so in the books.Shows what you know. There are no rules for streets, thus there's nothing to cross.
:P
*locates the rule for Raving Dork and erases every copy out of existence*
Poof!
*blushes*