Specifically, its the Cheetah(or rather the small cat animal companion) that sparked this discussion. When an entry says "2 claws (damage expression), Bite (damage expression)" Does 2 claws count as 1 attack?
Can a cheetah run up to its speed and "pounce" with 2 claws without actually having the pounce feat? or would it only get 1 claw?
2 claws, 1 bite = 2 attack rolls for claws and 1 attack roll for bite.
If it doesn't have pounce, only one attack off a charge, unless it has another ability that acts like pounce.
To expand on explanation a bit, some monsters have the rend ability, which requires both claws hitting. Such a condition would only be an issue if there's possibility of at least one of the claws missing, thus more than one attack roll.
I understand that you have to roll separate, but it seemed like they were implying that the cat had 2 "attacks" 1 bite attack and 1 set of 2 claws(rolled seperately)
It seems silly that a cheetah would charge and bite rather than claw but claws to half the damage of a bite...
Anyway, thanks for the clarification.
They are simply listing off the Cheetah's natural attacks. Bites and Claws are both primary attacks and a Cheetah will get three attack rolls in a full round attack (Bite/Claw/Claw).
On a charge, the Cheetah will only do a single attack which I assume is Bite because they listed it first but I see no reason why it can't be a claw instead.
I've always been a little curious why some animals have Claw/Claw/Bite and some have Bite/Claw/Claw, so I assume that they prefer to use the first weapon as a standard?
It has three attacks: one bite, one claw, and another claw. "2 claws" means "two separate claw attacks, each of which getting a separate attack roll."
In case you ever come back to check on this Mr. Reynolds:
Why do some creatures list their attacks in one order, and other creatures list them in another?
bite +6 (1d6+3 plus trip), 2 claws +6 (1d3+3)
2 claws +8 (1d6+4 plus grab), bite +8 (1d6+4)
Was this because actions such as trip and grab are automatically moved to the front of the list of attacks, or do these creatures have an attack order that follows the list?
Does a Cheetah prefer to bite as a standard action and an Owlbear prefers to claw?
I think it's for the monster's preferred attack (such as a case when it only has one attack), so they put it up front.
In 3E/3.5, the order used to matter. The first attack type was the primary, at the normal attack bonus, and all other attack types were secondary, at a –5 penalty from the normal attack bonus. So for a BAB +0 monster, you could have
2 claws +0, bite -5
or
bite +0, 2 claws -5
PF changed that. An attack's type determines if it's primary or secondary, not the order it's listed in. So you have:
2 claws +0, bite +0
or
bite +0, 2 claws +0
So the listed order doesn't matter.
I'm sure many creatures have their attacks listed in the same order they "traditionally" were listed, just because we built them that way in the same order as they were before, even though the order no longer matters.
Ah okay! I was curious if it was simply an inconsistency that spawned from the transition. Thanks for clarifying!