|
Alright, if you have slam attacks, do those 'take up' your arms for the round? example: a feral alchemist has two claws b/c of feral mutagen, then gets undead anatomy to get two slams. can he use both slams and claws in the same round, or do slams 'take up a limb' so to speak?
second, staffs say they use your relevant ability score, feats and CL if it's better than the staff's. does that mean a cleric using a staff of fire, uses his wisdom for the DC, and his caster level? or do you have to have those spells on your list?
1) I have no frakking clue.
2) Yay, an easy one! You have to have the spells on your list.
Staves use the spell trigger activation method
Spell trigger items can be used by anyone whose class can cast the corresponding spell.
It doesn't say anywhere you have to use your hands (or the equivalent thereof) to make a Slam attack. So you could use your Claws for other things.
Slam attacks are physiologically unspecifically sourced blunt force deliveries. You can slam with a shoulder (like body checking someone in hockey), head butt, knee, hip swing.
Personally I imagine it as a shoulder hit when talking about four legged animals or as a random haymaker/wild flailing of a limb when talking about creatures without other attack options (Zombies). But that's just in general; I can see zombies head butting and body checking with the best of them (especially those which have lost arms to the long passage of time)
Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action (although often a creature must forgo one natural attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a claw, tentacle, or slam). Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their available natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack’s original type.
You can still slam x2 and claw x2 in your example, but if you were using a weapon as well, you'd have to drop one of the four natural attacks AND they would be considered 'secondary attacks' (-5 and reduced strength bonus to damage... half I think).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its your fists unless you grow an extra tentacle or something. You can't claw slam claw slam any more than you can fist elbow fist elbow knee foot knee foot head.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
Its your fists unless you grow an extra tentacle or something. You can't claw slam claw slam any more than you can fist elbow fist elbow knee foot knee foot head.
Except that a monk can absolutely fist elbow fist elbow knee foot knee foot head if he somehow got enough unarmed attacks in a round. Slams, IMHO, are exactly like unarmed strikes except are considered natural attacks for all purposes.
Except that a monk can absolutely fist elbow fist elbow knee foot knee foot head if he somehow got enough unarmed attacks in a round.
He gets his BAB worth of fists. Or his BAB worth of left and right fists if he flurries. Knees, head, elbow etc REPLACE those attacks. They do not supplement them. He can define it as a headbut, he can kick if his arms are full of damsel (or dame) in distress, but he cannot merely redefine his unarmed attacks to get more of them.
Slams, IMHO, are exactly like unarmed strikes except are considered natural attacks for all purposes.
You are still limited by your number of usable limbs.
Except that a monk can absolutely fist elbow fist elbow knee foot knee foot head if he somehow got enough unarmed attacks in a round.
He gets his BAB worth of fists. Or his BAB worth of left and right fists if he flurries. Knees, head, elbow etc REPLACE those attacks. They do not supplement them. He can define it as a headbut, he can kick if his arms are full of damsel (or dame) in distress, but he cannot merely redefine his unarmed attacks to get more of them.
Slams, IMHO, are exactly like unarmed strikes except are considered natural attacks for all purposes.You are still limited by your number of usable limbs.
but under the monk is says
"A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet." meaning an unarmed strike can be any of these things, where in the rules does it specifically says what a slam attack is? or better yet what part of the body it uses. None of the rules I've read say anything about what part of the body is being used and so like the monk it would seem slam is hitting someone with part of your body, not just your fists, otherwise I'd think it would say something to that effect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
but under the monk is says
"A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet."
Exactly, and note how many attacks monks get. They do not fight with their fist, offhand fight with their other fist, off offhand fight with their head, off off off hand fight with their left foot, off off off off hand fight with their right foot...
If something doesn't say that it turns your hair blue then it doesn't turn your hair blue. You can't just say that because a spell DOESN"T specify that it doesn't turn your hair blue then it must do so because doing so gives you some sort of an advantage.
Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action (although often a creature must forgo one natural attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a claw, tentacle, or slam).
SO yes, slam attacks are implied to be on limbs like anything else.
Well, they are implied to often be from a limb. The source of a slam is undefined. You can make certain generalizations by analyzing the attack profile of creatures, but that's not going to give a solid definition without exceptions. For example, zombies only get 1 slam attack even though they have 2 limbs (usually). Gray oozes get a slam despite having no limbs at all (probably a pseudopod).
As there are no specific rules, it is ultimately up to the GM. I'd allow all four attacks. Otherwise we're saying slams have to be on arms and only arms, not shoulders or knees or foreheads or feet or chests or hips or etc.
For a simple answer: yiou assume the form of an undead. Pick one. If you can find one with both a slam and a claw, then take that and you gain both.
In my mind, yes, you could theoreticly have slam attacks and claw attacks. For the purpose of this spell however, I think they replace any natural weapons you had before though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, they are implied to often be from a limb. The source of a slam is undefined. You can make certain generalizations by analyzing the attack profile of creatures, but that's not going to give a solid definition without exceptions. For example, zombies only get 1 slam attack even though they have 2 limbs (usually). Gray oozes get a slam despite having no limbs at all (probably a pseudopod).
As there are no specific rules, it is ultimately up to the GM. I'd allow all four attacks. Otherwise we're saying slams have to be on arms and only arms, not shoulders or knees or foreheads or feet or chests or hips or etc.
Zombies have one attack because they're perpetually staggered.
It is often a limb. It isn't a limb when you're an ooze. You are turning into an undead with this spell, NOT an ooze. Attempting to take advantage of a rule despite its obvious intent is munchkining.
Nothing about slam says that it uses your limbs claiming otherwise is obvious foolishness. In fact the very existence of a bodyslam in the English language would make it rather obvious that slamming is not necessarily tied to your arms if they wanted to claim that it was tied to your arms they should have included that in the rules text.more stuffStuff
The catch is, you need to use your brain here though. What are you turning into?
In the example stated above, you gain claw OR slam attacks, as part of becoming undead. Slam attacks seem to imply they're zombie like, so in this case it's fair to assume that they replace any natural claw attacks you might have had.
|
|
Here's the rub, however, His claw attacks are from another effect, his feral mutagen. They are not natural claw attacks tied to his form. He drinks a mutagen to get claws and a bite, then uses undead anatomy. since the claws and bite are from a magical effect, would the undead anatomy get rid of them, or simply add the slam attacks in? If the order is important, could he drink the undead anatomy first, then drink the mutagen and end up with two slams and two claws and a bit? My inclination is, since the claws/bite are from a magical effect as well, they are not eliminated by the undead anatomy spell.
also, I agree slams do not take up limbs. The word mean "to dash, strike, knock, thrust, throw, slap down, etc., with violent and noisy impact". That does not specify any body parts. Just because most monsters that have slams have arms, does not mean that they must be done with arms. I also do not think it's "munchkining" to view it that way, considering the lack of definition, and the precedent set by the monk's unarmed attack that there is an attack that can have unspecified origins on the body.
|
but under the monk is says
"A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet."
Exactly, and note how many attacks monks get. They do not fight with their fist, offhand fight with their other fist, off offhand fight with their head, off off off hand fight with their left foot, off off off off hand fight with their right foot...
If something doesn't say that it turns your hair blue then it doesn't turn your hair blue. You can't just say that because a spell DOESN"T specify that it doesn't turn your hair blue then it must do so because doing so gives you some sort of an advantage.
Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action (although often a creature must forgo one natural attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a claw, tentacle, or slam).
SO yes, slam attacks are implied to be on limbs like anything else.
Gonna back BNW here, reference and context make it pretty clear the slams are associated with available limbs, to be mediated within the bounds of common sense and monster appropriateness.
Here's the rub, however, His claw attacks are from another effect, his feral mutagen. They are not natural claw attacks tied to his form. He drinks a mutagen to get claws and a bite, then uses undead anatomy. since the claws and bite are from a magical effect, would the undead anatomy get rid of them, or simply add the slam attacks in? If the order is important, could he drink the undead anatomy first, then drink the mutagen and end up with two slams and two claws and a bit? My inclination is, since the claws/bite are from a magical effect as well, they are not eliminated by the undead anatomy spell.
also, I agree slams do not take up limbs. The word mean "to dash, strike, knock, thrust, throw, slap down, etc., with violent and noisy impact". That does not specify any body parts. Just because most monsters that have slams have arms, does not mean that they must be done with arms. I also do not think it's "munchkining" to view it that way, considering the lack of definition, and the precedent set by the monk's unarmed attack that there is an attack that can have unspecified origins on the body.
I completely agree with NorseWolf.
Slam attacks are primary attacks and will use primary limbs, in cases where a form does not have primary limbs it often gets one primary slam attack. Two slam attacks almost always represent two primary arm-like limbs.
Technically claws could be on feet as well, but that too would be silly since feet are not usually primary limbs for a humanoid creature.
The only right answer is ask your GM, I'd say it is cheesy munchkinism and disallow it but other GMs might differ. Maybe you can ask James Jacobs in the 'ask James' thread if you want an independent rules lawyer.
|
|
What about elementals? They have two 'limbs' before they are large, but only get one slam. I know it's contextual, and depends on the monster, But I think making a blanket statement like "slams must use primary limbs" is dangerous and limiting. for example, back in 3.5, warforged had a natural slam attack. they could use it in addition to their weapons, and they could take feats that added stuff like silver tracery to their attacks, which covered their ENTIRE body with silver, not just their arms. I know that's 3.5, but it's an example.
|
|
What about elementals? They have two 'limbs' before they are large, but only get one slam. I know it's contextual, and depends on the monster, But I think making a blanket statement like "slams must use primary limbs" is dangerous and limiting. for example, back in 3.5, warforged had a natural slam attack. they could use it in addition to their weapons, and they could take feats that added stuff like silver tracery to their attacks, which covered their ENTIRE body with silver, not just their arms. I know that's 3.5, but it's an example.
Slam attacks are always primary attacks, according to Universal Monster Rules in the Bestiary (it's stated in the table under 'Natural Attacks'). I don't know about warforged in 3.5, but in PF "a creature must forgo one natural attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a claw, tentacle, or slam. Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack's original type."
To answer the OP's question, I'd personally rule that each round you have to choose whether you want to use slam attacks or claws, but you can't use both (or grow extra limbs to gain more attacks).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RAW it is unclear.
However, in practice, Paizo statblocks never allow slams in conjunction with weapons or claw attacks. This leads me to believe that they are NOT compatible.
<Inserts Joke about Stat-blocks and flurry here> ;P
|
Alright, if you have slam attacks, do those 'take up' your arms for the round? example: a feral alchemist has two claws b/c of feral mutagen, then gets undead anatomy to get two slams. can he use both slams and claws in the same round, or do slams 'take up a limb' so to speak?
When you cast this spell, you can assume the form of any Small or Medium corporeal creature of the undead type, which must be vaguely humanoid-shaped (like a ghoul, skeleton, or zombie). You gain a bite attack (1d6 for Medium forms, 1d4 for Small forms), two claw or slam attacks (1d6 for Medium forms, 1d4 for Small forms), and darkvision 60 feet. If the form you assume has any of the following abilities, you gain the listed ability: climb 30 feet, fly 30 feet (average maneuverability), swim 30 feet, low-light vision, and scent.
In this form, you detect as an undead creature (such as with detect undead, but not with magic that reveals your true form, such as true seeing) and are treated as undead for the purposes of channeled energy, cure spells, and inflict spells, but not for other effects that specifically target or react differently to undead (such as searing light).
Small undead: If the form you take is that of a Small undead, you gain a +2 size bonus to your Dexterity and a +1 natural armor bonus.
Medium undead: If the form you take is that of a Medium undead, you gain a +2 size bonus to your Strength and a +2 natural armor bonus.
The form you assume replace your original form, so what attacks you have in your original form is irrelevant. You get the attack of your polymorphed form.
The spell specify you get "a bite attack, two claw or slam attacks". Drinking the feral mutagen after drinking the extract will replace the spell damage with the mutagen damage but it will not give you more attacks. You are still limited to 1 bite and 2 claw or slam attacks. If you choose the slam attack the mutagen claw damage don't affect them in any way.
|
|
I don't see your point just because it's a primary attack doesn't mean it has to be made using the arms. Just like you can have a primary bite attack and 2 primary claw attacks but they don't have to replace each other.
Slam attacks are always primary attacks, according to Universal Monster Rules in the Bestiary (it's stated in the table under 'Natural Attacks'). I don't know about warforged in 3.5, but in PF "a creature must forgo one natural attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a claw, tentacle, or slam. Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack's original type."To answer the OP's question, I'd personally rule that each round you have to choose whether you want to use slam attacks or claws, but you can't use both (or grow extra limbs to gain more attacks).
As Ravingdork said, it's not explicitly spelled out in the rules, but I can't recall seeing a single monster that could use both claw and slam (primary)attacks on the same round. As for PCs, you don't need to use only your hands for slam/unarmed attacks, but I assume that most humanoid types will usually do so. If one of my players asked me about this (i.e. gaining extra claw/slam attacks due to this combo), I'd say that it's not possible.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The reasons for having a slam occupy a limb are
Its implied because that's how the undead that you're turning into work
Its implied in the description off a slam
Common sense
The reason for not having it occupy a limb is...
the desire to make more attacks than a hasted octopus on redbull
The reasons for having a slam occupy a limb are
Its implied because that's how the undead that you're turning into work
Its implied in the description off a slam
Common senseThe reason for not having it occupy a limb is...
the desire to make more attacks than a hasted octopus on redbull
I'd suggest adjusting your assumptions. The OP was asking a simple question. I was stating a means of slam attack delivery in absence of clear rules. I don't gain anything from it; I only GM games. I've not been a player for more than a one-shot session of d20 in years.
So please don't assume that people who disagree with you are munchkins looking to bend every rule to their benefit.
Look at the Flesh Golem Hound: Melee bite +13 (2d8+7) or slam +13 (2d6+7). It doesn't have arms to slam with and if it can slam or bite, it is probably actually slamming you with its face or shoulder. Or body-checking the target.
The more direct argument is Diego Rossi's point. Undead Anatomy 1 is a spell that polymorphs you you into an undead. Polymorph renders useless Supernatural Abilities that depend on form. Mutagen is a Supernatural Ability. Feral Mutagen depends on form (in that it gives you body-location specific natural attacks). It also states that the GM is final arbiter on whether or not the new form has the 'slots' for the form-specific SU abilities.
By this argument, I'd say no; feral mutagen gives you stat boosts like normal but you cannot use the claws or bite because your Undead Anatomy 1 effect is blocking those aspects from manifesting.
Bottom line - ask the GM.
|
|
I agree with MurphysParadox. This is for a game i'm RUNNING not for a game i'm playing in, so i'm not the one benefiting from the ruling.
Thank you Murphy, for actually answering the question with some rules. So feral mutagen and undead anatomy will not stack, because of the limitation on supernatural abilities based on form and polymorph effects.
Now, for the most basic part of the question, do slam attacks always take up a limb. I have a feeling the unofficial idea Paizo uses is thus: if it has arms, it uses it's arms. if it doesnt, it's more of a body slam. that's what i'm seeing from the different monsters i've looked up, that's all.
|
He can use Undead Anatomy, then use his Feral Mutagen.
Feral Mutagen is not a polymorph effect.
It is only important to know if the slams gained by Undead Anatomy are limb based.
As there is no hard precedent for slams being limb based, and there is no details within RAW to state they must be, then we are left with DM fiat until a FAQ is presented.
A humanoid zombie can lack arms, yet can still make a slam, so it is a poor example.
To get the effect the OP wants, he can use Undead Anatomy to take the form of a Four-Armed Mudra Skeleton, gain the two claw attacks provided by the spell, then use his Feral Mutagen to gain an additional pair of claws, and a bite.
|
|
sounds good to me. i figured you'd have to use the feral mutagen second though yes? if you use it first the UA extract will over-write it yes? and yeah, you can get what you want, you just have to be clever about it. as i said, there's no hard and fast RAW of anything having to do with slams. i'm just trying to find a guideline by what i've seen in paizo monster entries.