I wanted to get confirmation on something. Let's say I have PC with three natural attacks - a bite and two claws (which are on his feet). He's holding a greatsword. On round one he charges the baddie and attacks with his greatsword. On round two, he opts to full attack using his natural weapons. If he opts to not attack with his sword during the full attack, am I right in thinking that the three natural attacks are all treated as primaries?
Many thanks for your input!
You could use the sword, the bite, AND the two claws as part of a full attack if you wanted, since the claws are on the feet. It's just that the three natural attacks would then be at -5; not a bad deal, of course, but for some builds it may be preferable to rely on the natural attacks when full-attacking.
I would check with you GM on foot claws before settling in some may see it as an attempt to game the system.
I'm with talonhawke on this one, check with your gm first to see if they are ok with you having claws on your feet instead of your hands. There is another way to go about it if you are using a 2 hand weapon or have 1 hand free, but it is also rather gaming the system. Moving an item from one hand to another is a free action, so you attack with 1 claw, move the weapon to the other hand and attack with the second claw, but again that's just gaming the system. But yes the 3 natural attacks (claw, claw, bite) are primary unless you are also attacking with a manufactured weapon that round.
With regards to the original question, you can make your natural attack routine without using your greatsword if you want to do so. The reason is that at all times, every creature has a very poor weapon attack available in the form of its unarmed strike. The same rules that say that you can make an attack sequences like Sword/Claw/Claw/Bite, but that forces you to treat the natural attacks as secondary, say you can make an attack sequence that looks like Unarmed Strike/Claw/Claw/Bite, with the same drawbacks. That's a horrible attack sequence for any creature without IAS, so none of them ever do that, which clearly shows that leaving some of your potential attacks unmade in such a fashion is allowable.
Let's set aside the question of whether or not it's problematic to put claws on feet, if, for no other reason, than because it isn't in my case. There's at least one other player in the group I play with who has done so, and RAW, there's nothing to suggest that you cannot.
If your claws are on your feet, than you can use them via a kick with your legs (a la a velociraptor) whilst holding the sword with your hands.
While we haven't gotten a definitive response in this thread, it seems like it's doable. One can choose which attacks one does and does not use during a full attack, and natural attacks that are primary remain so unless being used in tandem with an attack with a manufactured weapon: ergo, if you don't use the sword, they remain primary attacks. At least, that's my reasoning, and I haven't seen/heard anything to debunk it.
They are primary, however using both claws to attack can be problematic if you plan on standing for the rest of the round. I find it cuts down on liberal use of both feet to attack.
As a GM, I would require a REF save to remain standing with a dual kick, or be knocked prone, unless using an attack like pounce or rake. I would say that unless you have quick draw for your natural weapons, you'd need to take at least a move action to switch modes of attack. I would also be likely to smack you with the GM screen when you suggested this course of action.
I have never seen claws on feet of a biped. I don't even think the eidolon does it, but I may be mistaken.
I have never seen claws on feet of a biped. I don't even think the eidolon does it, but I may be mistaken.
Ostrich, Cassowary, Emu, many therapod dinosaurs... especially the dromaesaurs (I know I spelled that wrong). Of course, the Jurassic Park Velociraptor was actually a Deinonychus, but same family. Velociraptor was the size of a turkey.
I have never seen claws on feet of a biped. I don't even think the eidolon does it, but I may be mistaken.
The Eidolon has the option of putting claws on its feet, but only one pair.
The game tends to call the natural attacks of bipeds that attack with thier feet "talon" or "kick". Claws can obviously be on feet, since every cat-like creature has them; the question is whether a bipedal creature can use them that way. The RAW answer is "obviously yes", but some players and DMs don't like that because they believe that the claws granted by various features and effects should go on the hands so they can't be used in concert with weapons.
An eagle's attacks are called "claws", and they're clearly on its feet. Avoral Agathions have attacks called "claws", and the text makes it clear that those are the feet. Thunderbirds too. There's a few other birds that are similar. In general though, Avoral Avathions are the most human-ish thing that has claw attacks with its feet.
Can a monk kick someone while holding a weapon in each hand?
If the answer is no- the rules disagree. they can make unarmed attacks with any part of their body.
If the answer is yes: then there isn't any reason a creature can't use claws on their feet while holding a weeapon in their hands.
The key is to think of it more like a monk attacking (fluid movements, etc.) than to think of the creature doing some lame slash attack with both feet at once.
-S
Can a monk kick someone while holding a weapon in each hand?
If the answer is no- the rules disagree. they can make unarmed attacks with any part of their body.
If the answer is yes: then there isn't any reason a creature can't use claws on their feet while holding a weeapon in their hands.
The key is to think of it more like a monk attacking (fluid movements, etc.) than to think of the creature doing some lame slash attack with both feet at once.
-S
Not to get into the "its like TWF" argument, but I always let monks do a full flurry with one foot. TWF with both feet would be impossible if you wanted to stand in the same round imo.
I don't see why a person can't kick with both feet. kick once, sweep with the other or whatever.
We already say folks are parrying, blocking, dodging, and generally moving around a 5 foot square during the 6 seconds a combat round entails. Why are we suddenly saying they can't kick with one foot and then the other?
(not touching the monk twf thing with a 10 ft pole :) )
It just seems like a completely artificial and arbitrary nerf to things with clawed feet. Not that its a big deal normally but, it still doesn't make alot of sense.
Count out 6 seconds. Its not a finger snap of time.
Walk up to a wall. Kick it, put your foot back down, kick it again.
Not over your head kicks, just.. kick it.
No reason a creature who is used to fighting with its own limbs can't do the same. No reason a monk can't either.
I mean don't misundestand me- I really don't have a dog in the hunt. I've never ever played someone that this would be an issue for, and I doubt I ever will. It just doesn't seem to make sense that we're going to try and limit it not based on the rules, but based on some arbitrary notion of how we perceive the mechanism of that creature's combat to work.
-S
I don't see why a person can't kick with both feet. kick once, sweep with the other or whatever.
Oh, I would let them attack with both feet in iteratives, just not as off hand and primary, because that means they attack with both at the same time. It seems nonsensical to me that one would launch both feet in the air, kick with both simultaneously, then be standing the same as one would after TWF with 2 daggers.
Then envision the combat happening in some other way than a two-foot simultaneous kick?
It still gets into "The RAW Doesn't disallow this but because I can't envision a combat routine that lets it happen I'm saying you can't"
By RAW he can kick once, then kick again. Its not one attack its two- just the same as swinging your sword once and then swinging it again.
Or swinging your left sword then your right.. or your left sword then biting someone.
or left, bite, right or whatever.
Its a nerf that really doesn't need to happen for no other reason than you can't see someone kicking twice in 6 seconds without lifting both feet off the ground simultaneously.
Setting aside the matter of whether or not someone can do it- do we really need to nerf this because of what we can or can't imagine something being able to do?
Thats ultimately what it boils down to.
Regardless of whether you believe someone can make the kicks- can't you just.. say its a creature used to using its feet and hands in combat and move on?
You are voiding RAW when you say no, for no other reason than you.. just don't like it. I mean- its not even a "omg its too powerful" thing.. its just.. "nah don't like that".
Greatsword swing swing left foot kick, right foot kick, bite etc.
Assuming they have those attacks, there's really no reason not to allow it.
-S
Let's set aside the question of whether or not it's problematic to put claws on feet, if, for no other reason, than because it isn't in my case. There's at least one other player in the group I play with who has done so, and RAW, there's nothing to suggest that you cannot.
Fair enough, but people are going to argue this to death.
If your claws are on your feet, than you can use them via a kick with your legs (a la a velociraptor) whilst holding the sword with your hands.
If you had natural attacks with your feet you could use them with your sword.
Actually, swinging with your left sword then your right is taking an iterative attack sequence, which I am fine with. Attacking with both at the same time is TWF. All primary natural attacks happen at the same time, they are not iterative.
Actually, swinging with your left sword then your right is taking an iterative attack sequence, which I am fine with. Attacking with both at the same time is TWF. All primary natural attacks happen at the same time, they are not iterative.So, my eidolon is biting, clawing with both hands, and stinging with it's tail, all at the exact same time?
If they are all primary, then yes, they occur at the same time mechanically.
It is a logical extension of
If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.
All primary attacks share the same bonus, thus they can be rolled in any order amongst themselves, so mechanically they occur in the same segment of the action. You can 5-foot step between any of the attacks, it isn't even considered an actual action at all. You can adjudicate which occurs first, and make decisions based on what happens due to each attack, but they all occur at the same time in the action.
There is nothing saying they happen simultaneously. Same BAB does not equal "all happening at once".
I apologize, I need to elaborate.
All attacks in a round must be rolled in order, from highest bonus to lowest. Every attack that occurs with the same bonus can be rolled interchangeably with all attacks that share the same bonus. In general, this will split attacks into 4 groups at most (20/15/10/5). There are, of course, exceptions, but this is generally the case.
Chronologically, every single attack occurs at a distinct point in time. However, every attack that shares the same bonus must occur within the same contiguous attack group as all other attacks with the same bonus. They occur in whatever order you wish, but they must take place in the same part of the Full-Attack action (ie. before all attacks with a lower bonus, and after all attacks with a higher bonus).
In my mind, this means that all attacks with the same bonus must be able to occur within a 1.5 second frame (1/4 of 6 seconds). Sure, they don't occur at the exact same moment, but they must have the flexibility to occur within about a second of each other, and using two claws on one's only pair of feet to attack will leave one unable to stand during the attack.
There is no rule that says that you cannot use both feet to attack with the same bonus (flurry, natural attacks, etc), but I think it is entirely sensible to limit foot attacks to the point where you have at least one foot on the ground for any given attack bonus group.
Which means you are deviating from the raw and creating a houserule.
Which is fine.. but this is the rules forum.
And I honestly disagree with the house rule.
I can go get some bat quano and some sulphur and no matter what I do to it I won't be tossing any 20ft fireballs 200 yars down the road. It just makes no sense. Except thats exactly what RAW says I can do.
I get that you think it doesn't make sense- but that doesn't necessarily mean it should be changed. Short of taking you to a martial arts tournament or something I have no way to show you that you are wrong- but.. you really rather are.
Folks can do alot of things in 6 seconds with their hands and feet, and they can do so pretty easily. Saying that you are dividing up the 6 seconds into 4ths is just another houserule you are making to try to enforce your other houserule.
I do understand what you are saying thematically, but I think you are using alot of fluff to create a nerf where one isn't needed.
The nerf being that a creature with two claws on their feet can't use them if they are also using a melee weapon.
-S
How is it a nerf to require that a biped be able to use at least one of its feet for standing? Honestly I think it should be one of those unspoken rules, like you get fatigued when you don't sleep.
Its a nerf because the only thing keeping him from having a foot on the ground all the time is your inability to imagine them in combat otherwise.
I don't mean that to sound insulting- truly. But thats really what it boils down to.
You can't imagine someone kicking twice in 6 seconds without both feet being off the ground at once.
The RAW does not say anywhere that kicking twice in a round means they are doing some weird double foot in the air kick. You are saying it. And then you are altering how RAW works due to that.
This isn't some "well the rules don't say you can't act when yuo are dead" thing.
This is a "it makes no sense for bat guano and sulpher to make a fireball so you can't" thing.
Its a nerf because you are putting into the game a requirement that doesn't exist: that the creature can't use its attacks in the manner in which RAW says that it can.
(such as, swinging a great sword, taking a bite, and kicking once with each of its claws).
You are using fluff to justify your nerf. you could just as easily use fluff to justify the RAW.
that doesn't make sense, i'll just rule that you kick twice with your left foot"
instead of "that doesn't make sense, I'm removing one of your attacks"
Or even better "Wow he must be really good at unarmed combat to pull that off, well done"
Your argument is basically that you can't imagine it happening and so you are going to change the rules in your game to reflect that.
I'm saying.. Imagine greater? (to quote Sy Fy I suppose).
But don't let your unwillingness to imagine how RAW works stop RAW from working when its to the detriment to the creature involved.
Obviously, your campaign your rules. If you and your players like the change go for it- and more power to you. "Fun" is relative.
But, as far as RAW goes your method is definately a change.
-S
Not to get into the "its like TWF" argument, but I always let monks do a full flurry with one foot. TWF with both feet would be impossible if you wanted to stand in the same round imo.Can a monk kick someone while holding a weapon in each hand?
If the answer is no- the rules disagree. they can make unarmed attacks with any part of their body.
If the answer is yes: then there isn't any reason a creature can't use claws on their feet while holding a weeapon in their hands.
The key is to think of it more like a monk attacking (fluid movements, etc.) than to think of the creature doing some lame slash attack with both feet at once.
-S
Capoiesta's could kick with both feet but they would probably do a handstand first.
Kick with left foot. Lower left foot. Kick with right foot. Lower right foot. I'm not being insulting but, it's possible. All in 6 seconds too.How many attacks was that? 4? Because if so, that follows exactly what I said before about iteratives and 4 attack groups. I have no problem with using different feet on different attack groups, I just don't like using different feet in the same attack group.
You can't imagine someone kicking twice in 6 seconds without both feet being off the ground at once.
What part of "I am fine with iterative attacks" don't you understand?
Capoiesta's could kick with both feet but they would probably do a handstand first.
In game terms, I believe that translates to "they performed an acrobatics check to not fall prone" :)
Now you're fine with them using both feet to attack? I give up.
If we are talking feet, then we are talking about unarmed strikes, which can be used in an iterative attack sequence. If you take iterative attacks with your feet, then every attack falls under a different bonus, thus a different attack group. I have no problem with interchanging these feet if they fall across different attack bonus groups. With natural attacks it is different, because they fall on the same bonus, and therefore the same attack group.
Which is entirely, wholly, and completely irrelevant to anything under RAW.
You are making that a difference and claiming it means they can't do it.
The rules don't. Not one single place does it say they can't.
You are creating a rule where there isn't one because you don't think someone can kick once with each foot. The rules just do not support that.
By RAW someone can swing a great sword through however many attacks they get with it, then claw with a foot and claw with another. Regardless of at what attack bonus its at.
By your interpretation if someone gets a Magic Weapon cast on one foot but not they other it suddenly makes them attack faster (by virtue of creating another "attack bracket".
It just doesn't stack up. Not to me.
-S
By your interpretation if someone gets a Magic Weapon cast on one foot but not they other it suddenly makes them attack faster (by virtue of creating another "attack bracket".By attack bonus I assume the rules are talking about the BAB, not other miscellaneous bonuses.
You are creating a rule where there isn't one because you don't think someone can kick once with each foot. The rules just do not support that.The rules also don't support a biped being forced to use its feet to walk, but I don't think it necessary that the rules address that.
By RAW someone can swing a great sword through however many attacks they get with it, then claw with a foot and claw with another. Regardless of at what attack bonus its at.Incorrect. RAW is as follows for a Full-Attack
If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.
Note that you can take two attacks with your greatsword before you are forced to use your naturals (at BAB 6+), unless you have multiattack, in which case you can only take one swing before you must use your naturals (excluding haste effects and the like).
Whew. And here I thought I was asking for a simple confirmation.
I'm with Selgard in terms of how I envision this. He kicks with one foot, shifts his weight, and then kicks to the other. Deviating from the sheer RAW mechanics of it for a moment, it perhaps makes even more sense for my PC in particular, since he has some levels in monk.
Also, in my opinion, the fact that you can 5' step in between any natural attacks supports the idea that you can kick with both legs during a full-round action without jeopardizing your ability to stand stably.
As an aside: I don't know if I've ever seen a thread around here reach, say, 30+ posts without there being an argument involved.
By kick I assume you mean scratch?
Argument? I thought we were just discussing how the rule worked.
Have to work all the kinks out of it to make sure you've come to the correct conclusion..
-S
The correct conclusion is that they are primary attacks and he can make them as such as long as he doesn't use his greatsword as well. There is no argument about this. The malfus conclusion is the one we have been discussing.
Even using BAB it does not work. Haste allows for an extra attack and both of the first attacks would have the same BAB. TWF also the same BAB for both attacks. Having both feet kick out at once is no more RAW or RAI than making two weapon swings at once with swords.
And that by RAW, he can use them as secondary weapons if he opts to use the greatsword.
-S
Even using BAB it does not work. Haste allows for an extra attack and both of the first attacks would have the same BAB. TWF also the same BAB for both attacks. Having both feet kick out at once is no more RAW or RAI than making two weapon swings at once with swords.
What does not work?
Your "attack group" theory, saying attacks with the same BAB must be made at the same time.