PCs are not Eidiolons.No they are not, doesn't mean the eidolon max natural attacks isn't a reasonable guide to use for a GM concerned about a PC gaining lots of natural attacks early
I disagree. Why should a PC trying to specialize in "lots of natural attacks" be limited the same as another person's class feature. I really can't bold that enough. Eidolon is NOT a character. It is part of a character's abilities, a character that also enjoys full progression arcane spellcasting and potent spell-like summoning abilities. It is not at all reasonable to put the same limitations on a PC as it is to put on a class feature companion.
I remember in 3E, people complained that the animal companion was a better fighter than the fighter (ironically, PF eidolon is even stronger than a 3E animal companion, and yet the silence of complaints is deafening). Their problem was a very basic, understandable one: "Some spellcaster's pet shouldn't be stronger at melee than my whole character!"
PCs are not Eidiolons.No they are not, doesn't mean the eidolon max natural attacks isn't a reasonable guide to use for a GM concerned about a PC gaining lots of natural attacks earlyI disagree. Why should a PC trying to specialize in "lots of natural attacks" be limited the same as another person's class feature. I really can't bold that enough. Eidolon is NOT a character. It is part of a character's abilities, a character that also enjoys full progression arcane spellcasting and potent spell-like summoning abilities. It is not at all reasonable to put the same limitations on a PC as it is to put on a class feature companion.
I remember in 3E, people complained that the animal companion was a better fighter than the fighter (ironically, PF eidolon is even stronger than a 3E animal companion, and yet the silence of complaints is deafening). Their problem was a very basic, understandable one: "Some spellcaster's pet shouldn't be stronger at melee than my whole character!"
I'm not sure how many different ways I can say its a house rule that a GM concerned about high numbers of natural attacks at low levels might solve their problem.
It's not a matter of Why, its simply a suggestion a GM may elect to use
|
The Mother Teeth trait grants you a bite as well.
Really, all you need is the right fluff, and Tusked works thematically.
Perhaps being raised among Orcs, you noticed several Orcs using techniques to elongate and strengthen their teeth through various exercises and applications of unguents and decided to follow in their foot steps.
Mother Teeth seems more reasonable 1d2 secondary attack.
Honestly we've already established that you can take Tusked by RAW, I just personally wouldn't and know my GM would be in the same boat.
but yes with the right fluff you can make anything fly ;)
Ratfolk, with the Adopted and Tusked trait, the Sharpclaw feat, and a tailblade.
That's four natural attacks, at first level, in any class.
Now, go into alchemist, take the Tentacle Discovery, the Vestigial Arm Discovery(twice) and the Feral Mutagen Discovery.
Later, take the Demonic Obedience(Lamashtu) feat for an extra slam.That's 4 claws, 2 slams, 1 bite, and 1 tail attack.
Why has no one mentioned this?
Vestigial Arm (Ex): The alchemist gains a new arm (left or right) on his torso. The arm is fully under his control and cannot be concealed except with magic or bulky clothing. The arm does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round, though the arm can wield a weapon and make attacks as part of the alchemist's attack routine (using two-weapon fighting). The arm can manipulate or hold items as well as the alchemist's original arms (for example, allowing the alchemist to use one hand to wield a weapon, another hand to hold a potion, and the third hand to throw a bomb). The arm has its own “hand” and “ring” magic item slots (though the alchemist can still only wear two rings and two hand magic items at a time). An alchemist may take this discovery up to two times.
Are natural attacks... attacks...
Ratfolk, with the Adopted and Tusked trait, the Sharpclaw feat, and a tailblade.
That's four natural attacks, at first level, in any class.
Now, go into alchemist, take the Tentacle Discovery, the Vestigial Arm Discovery(twice) and the Feral Mutagen Discovery.
Later, take the Demonic Obedience(Lamashtu) feat for an extra slam.That's 4 claws, 2 slams, 1 bite, and 1 tail attack.
Why has no one mentioned this?
Vestigial Arm (Ex): The alchemist gains a new arm (left or right) on his torso. The arm is fully under his control and cannot be concealed except with magic or bulky clothing. The arm does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round, though the arm can wield a weapon and make attacks as part of the alchemist's attack routine (using two-weapon fighting). The arm can manipulate or hold items as well as the alchemist's original arms (for example, allowing the alchemist to use one hand to wield a weapon, another hand to hold a potion, and the third hand to throw a bomb). The arm has its own “hand” and “ring” magic item slots (though the alchemist can still only wear two rings and two hand magic items at a time). An alchemist may take this discovery up to two times.Are natural attacks... attacks...
It was mentioned back on page 1, basically a grey area that's still disputed.
|
|
Oh, this has been argued time, and time again.
The Vestigial arm discovery simply disallows multiweapon fighting. The claws are the "extra attack", not the arm.
You can use two daggers and two claws, without breaking the discovery restriction. You can also use four claws. You cannot, however, use four daggers.
It was mentioned back on page 1, basically a grey area that's still disputed.
How is it a gray area? It says it does not grant extra attacks. Can you link me to or explain how one can argue that RAW?
Edit: Understood after BBT's post.
Oh, this has been argued time, and time again.
The Vestigial arm discovery simply disallows multiweapon fighting. The claws are the "extra attack", not the arm.
You can use two daggers and two claws, without breaking the discovery restriction. You can also use four claws. You cannot, however, use four daggers.
Heh basically there is no clear answer apart from take what you read on the boards and ask your GM ;)
It was mentioned back on page 1, basically a grey area that's still disputed.How is it a gray area? It says it does not grant extra attacks. Can you link me to or explain how one can argue that RAW?
I'll let blackbloodtroll answer that one ;)
So arguably, unless you could gain a 3rd/4th claw attack, you would have the same problem as having a head but no bite. Sharpclaw feat mentioned and other abilities that I know of that grant claw attacks grant X claw uses, not one for each limb capable of having claws.
BTW: I am not arguing for the sake of arguing, I am trying to understand where RAW meets real life logic.
So with this logic, the idea natural attacker build is a barbarian/alchemist ratfolk (or any class that grants 2 claw attacks) it would seem.
Sorry for bringing this back up, but I keep hearing things like this:
The only real problem with all these crazy natural attack builds is that a barb can only take one totem. So, if you take fiend totem for gore you can't take beast totem for pounce. Pounce seems even more necessary with all these attacks.
Now I need to understand something, here is the info regarding multiple totems
Totem rage powers grant powers related to a theme. A barbarian cannot select from more than one group of totem rage powers; for example, a barbarian who selects a beast totem rage power cannot later choose to gain any of the dragon totem rage powers (any rage power with “dragon totem” in its title), unless she has the totem warrior archetype.
now the totem warrior is an archetype that replaces nothing and grants nothing (except multiple totems). Yet everywhere I hear about barbarians being stuck to a single totem. If you can take archetypes, you might as well take this one, unless im missing something?
Side note, why didnt they just make all barbarians able to do it, instead of a free workaround that costs you nothing (just knowledge of its existence)?