What Exactly Is a 'Tentacle Attack'? (Old debate, but still don't care)


Rules Questions

251 to 300 of 358 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

Duskblade wrote:
I agree, it wouldn't "break the game", but I do know that natural weapons are typically restricted to 'one attack per limb per round' sort of deal. Like, if you use the 'tentacle limb' once...u can't use it a second time during the same round.

Most natural attacks don't take the place of regular iterative attacks though. I'm just wondering how far this "exception" goes.


I thought the (IUS/Armored Spikes) / TWF / Natural Attack was a boogey man used to scare new forum users into acting nice. Didn't think it'd appear in the wild...

Silver Crusade

Rathyr wrote:
Dex 17 on a Alch is pretty rough... Pretty much have to commit to going Weapon Finesse, and your Int will suffer.

yes, but I think at this point we're doing a thought exercise, not a matter of practicality. It's a matter of "CAN I do this, not SHOULD I do this?"

Designer

5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 36 people marked this as a favorite.

The core rules assume that you're a humanoid creature and you only have two "limbs" to attack with each round if you're using the "fighting with two weapons" option. It doesn't matter if you're making a headbutt and a punch, or a kick and a punch, or 2 kicks, or 2 punches, you're just making two attacks per round. At no time would you ever be able to justify a BAB +0 creature with no natural weapons making 2 punches AND 2 kicks per round: because the rules are assuming you are using your left hand and right hand, but hand-waves the idea that one of those "hands" could be some other body part such as an elbow, kick, or headbutt. The rules don't care, in the same way that they don't care if you say you're making a high swing or a low swing: it is irrelevant to the game mechanics, which say "make an attack roll to see if you hit." The game says, "pick a hand, even if it's not really a hand, make an attack, then pick another hand, even if it's not really a hand, and make a second attack."

When you throw in natural attacks, it gets more complicated because it starts defining SOME of your specific attack locations, and yet it continues to hand-wave the nature of the rest of your attacks. So you start thinking, "I now have two claws, and it makes sense that I can't make 2 claw attacks AND 2 punches in the same round because I'd be using each arm twice, but before I had these claws I was able to make punches OR kicks, so why is it that now that I have claws, I can't also make kicks in the same round? Did my legs suddenly stop working because I got claws?"

The answer is no, your legs didn't stop working, but you're still running up against the game's assumption that you're making up to two attacks per round using TWF. And you are making two attacks per round: 2 claw attacks. And you're doing it at a better attack bonus than you were with two (unarmed strike) punches:

punches: BAB +0, no TWF feat means main at –4, offhand at –8, for a total of main –4, offhand –8
claws: BAB +0, primary attack means no penalty, for a total of +0/+0

In fact, your claws are even better than if you had TWF, which would be at –2/–2.

You're at least +12 better overall with claws than with unarmed strikes, but that's not good enough for you, you have to stack in more.

And yes, the rules say that if you're using a manufactured weapon or unarmed strikes, you CAN use them in conjunction with natural attacks, "so long as a different limb is used for each attack."

The intent of that was to allow you wield a 1H weapon and make a secondary claw attack with your other hand, or to let you wield a 1H weapon and make a secondary bite attack with your mouth, or to let you wield a 2H weapon and make a secondary bite attack with your mouth.

The intent was to prevent you from making a full attack sequence with your natural attacks and a bunch of unarmed strikes by specifically defining your undefined unarmed strikes as conveniently different limbs than your natural attacks. Which is exactly what you're trying to do.

News flash: the game is already stacked so you're expected to win. You don't have to abuse the system to ensure it.

Rathyr wrote:
So can a tentacle replace as many attacks per round as you have?

Nothing anywhere in the rules says you can use a natural attack in place of multiple other attacks.


Thanks for clarifying that, SKR. The alch tentacle obviously operates slightly differently than regular natural attacks, thus I was wondering if it was limited to a single attack or not.


Given how the monk's flurry can't be used with natural attacks without a Feat, that makes sense.


Respectfully, even if that was the original intent of how IUS and natural attacks were supposed to interact, I'd say it fell pretty short of the goal. Barring claws, most natural attacks don't even conflict with "regular limbs" used to attack at all (Bite, Gore, Tentacle, Wings, Tail...). Is it "more intended" for a player to use IUS (punch) with Bite/Tail than IUS (kick) with claw/claw?

There are (many) weapons in the game that specifically bypass the need for the "typical" limb. And even if IUS was changed to be right hand/left hand, that still doesn't address the multitude of "limbless" weapons that currently exist that can easily recreate the exact same scenario with claws (not to mention regular just regular TWFing with weapons and non-claw natural weapons). Seeing as there are so many ways to get a lot of attacks with TWFing and natural attacks, is it any surprise that the "intent" was missed?

From my point of view, you aren't breaking the game by using IUS (kick)/claws than you are with a two handed weapon/armor spikes, or a 1hander/shield/armor spikes. And through all of this, lets remember that the player in question is expending resources (feats, race, etc) to make this work. It's not a loophole that has no opportunity cost. Secondary natural attacks take a pretty big hit to damage and accuracy, and are very expensive to keep enchanted (AoMF thread anyone? =P).

Lastly, I don't think anyone here seeks to "abuse" the system. I, for one, enjoy understanding the rules inside and out, so that I can swiftly narrate my turns without any page flipping. A DM can ask me a rule question about my character and I can answer, explaining how/why it works. It's not wrong to want to be 'good' at rules. I enjoy understanding ALL the options available to my character, even if I would restrain myself and not start out with 5 attacks at level 1. Some of these situations are purely hypothetical, which I think is good for any game system to have, as it promotes the development of better rules in the future.

Natural attacks and Unarmed Strikes are actually two of my favorite mechanics that call out to me when I am making a character. There's something much more badass about mauling your foes as opposed to using actual weapons...

Just my 2 copper. I definitely like seeing rule authorities clarify issues, and hope they continue to do so in the future.

Designer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Rathyr wrote:
Respectfully, even if that was the original intent of how IUS and natural attacks were supposed to interact, I'd say it fell pretty short of the goal. Barring claws, most natural attacks don't even conflict with "regular limbs" used to attack at all (Bite, Gore, Tentacle, Wings, Tail...). Is it "more intended" for a player to use IUS (punch) with Bite/Tail than IUS (kick) with claw/claw?

The system is built assuming the PCs are normal PC-race humanoids, not freaks. Deviating from that is going to deviate from the game's default assumptions. That's what happens when you have a living game system that continues to publish options that potentially bend or break all of the core rules... especially when you combine them together.

Just because you can build something with the rules doesn't mean you should build it.

And yes, I think "let me if I can break the normal limit to how many attacks I can make per round at level 1" is attempting to abuse the system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Something somewhat related would be whether claws can go on feet. Say you have two claws already, and then get feral mutagen. Can you put those claws, or any other, on the feet? I surmise that the answer is no and that 'claws on the feet' are actually talons. Daigle said as much, and one of the king of Monsters, I trust him, but there are enough oddities that make me wonder.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
The answer is no, your legs didn't stop working, but you're still running up against the game's assumption that you're making up to two attacks per round using TWF. And you are making two attacks per round: 2 claw attacks. And you're doing it at a better attack bonus than you were with two (unarmed strike) punches:

And what if you aren't making kick attacks with 2wf, but just want to make your normal BAB/BAB-5/etc attacks with kick, plus Claws and Bite and whatever you have? Should you also not be able to combine natural weapons with iteratives when using Haste/ Speed weapons? Rapid Shot? What about 2wf makes it special, if limb usage isn't relevant?

My main problems for this: 2wf is never even indirectly implicated as the 'standard baseline' by which iterative/natural weapon combos can be made. I already posted several examples of bestiary creatures using 2wf or multiweapon fighting and making 2 or more natural attacks BEYOND the iterative attacks. If a PC or PC-class NPC somehow gains many natural attacks, exactly why would anybody not expect them to function like bestiary monsters who have many natural attacks, perhaps the exact same types of natural attacks you gained (and use iteratives and/or 2wf)? I just don't think there is a coherent rule which can address existing RAW and Bestiary examples, while limiting iterative/nat-wpn combos BEYOND the 'same limb' limitation.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
The system is built assuming the PCs are normal PC-race humanoids, not freaks. Deviating from that is going to deviate from the game's default assumptions. That's what happens when you have a living game system that continues to publish options that potentially bend or break all of the core rules... especially when you combine them together.

Well, I do have to say then that it's pretty ironic that you guys at Paizo ended up confirming the BESTIARY version of combining iteratives with natural weapons, and the one that doesn't impose 2wf penalties or limitations on said combos. I don't think the previous Core Rules verson of the rules for combining iteratives/natural weapons ever worked exactly like you seem to want, but it seemed to have contained at least the seed for a concept linking 2wf with this subject.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Just because you can build something with the rules doesn't mean you should build it.

So I'll take from this that the clear RAW /does/ work as it says, i.e. the only restriction on combining natural weapons + iteratives is the same-limb rule. Great.

I definitely agree with your sentiment here, and I also avoid what I feel is cheesy.
Albeit, I don't really know if every case of utilizing natural weapon and iterative combos for 'more attacks than you could do with 2wf' is actually cheesy... Certainly when Paizo itself is publishing stuff letting (Tengu) PCs get 3 natural attacks from level 1, which seems more problematic to me than just using the rules on this subject. I mean, not even combining iteratives with nat-weapons, Paizo has released tons of Class Abilities, etc, that allow one to gain s&&*-ton of attacks. Are those also 'cheesy', and should be banned?

So is it bad for a Claw+Bite Tengu to also make Kicks with 2WF?
What if the Tengu DOESN'T have Claws, and just wants to combine Bite with 2WF Kicks?

The argument that this stuff 'obviously' shouldn't be allowed just isn't that obvious to me, unless one wants to believe that Kicks are something a character would never normally do. That an Unarmed Fighter might make their own 'non Flurry Flurry' of Kicks, Claws, Bites, etc, doesn't seem like it breaks the flavor of the game. It also isn't breaking precedent of 2wf/multiweaponfighting using monsters adding on 2 or more natural weapons on top their weapon attacks.

@Cheapy: I believe some usages of Claws specifically go on legs, and those would be exceptions.
Rake doesn't explicitly say where you gain the extra Claw attacks, but it says you gain claw attacks,
so if the rules would make it illegal for claws to be added to legs (unless explicitly allowed),
then 4 limbed creatures who already have 2 claws (on forelimbs) couldn't benefit from Rake.
That is kind of a serious issue with this reading. (or it just means Rake needs Errata to mention legs or rear limbs, or change to 'Talon' attacks)


Right, sorry. My post was coming from the perspective of bipedal creatures only.


I think I recall that when the first printing CRB went out, natural attacks worked one way, but they were changed in the first Bestiary. I faintly recall the CRB v1 mentioning TWF and this being removed. I would have to double check and do some post searching.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:

The system is built assuming the PCs are normal PC-race humanoids, not freaks. Deviating from that is going to deviate from the game's default assumptions. That's what happens when you have a living game system that continues to publish options that potentially bend or break all of the core rules... especially when you combine them together.

Just because you can build something with the rules doesn't mean you should build it.

And yes, I think "let me if I can break the normal limit to how many attacks I can make per round at level 1" is attempting to abuse the system.

Of course. I think it's impossible to prevent power creep as more options are released. Simple by having more choices, you are a more powerful character.

However, I am wondering if that original intent should continue to be the status quo? With the so many classes/races/archetypes/items giving players the ability generate natural attacks, I'm not sure I can fault people for seeing the obvious opportunity to gain additional attacks. "Freaks" are trivially easy to create, even by accident. I actually think with the drawbacks of secondary attacks (low accuracy and damage, difficulty enchanting, dangerous to use against some creatures) that the issue has remained remarkably balanced, thankfully.

Given the current ample availability, I wouldn't begrudge a player for seeking to understand how natural attacks work and making that aspect of their character stronger, no more than I would begrudge a player for trying to find synergies with Power Attack and Two Handed Weapons, or making their spells harder to resist. It's the nature of the beast, players like being strong. And looking at the mechanics behind natural attacks (and how you don't get more as you level), I would argue that EVENTUALLY finding a way within the rules to get more attacks is a great way to keep your character relevant.

And while I wouldn't bring a Tengu with 5 attacks at level 1 to a table, I certainly might make one with 3 (I mean, why not? They have 3 attacks in their base race...). Is that abusing the system? I certainly wouldn't assume that. How many attacks is appropriate at any given level for a PC? As a player, I have no idea (well, 5 at level 1 is too much). That line between could and should becomes increasingly difficult to draw when the base power level is constantly on the rise.

Silver Crusade

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
The system is built assuming the PCs are normal PC-race humanoids, not freaks.

Man, way to go Sean. Now my Tusked Half-Orc is in the corner, crying about how no one loves him because he looks different. Do ya feel good about yourself now?

;)


Rathyr wrote:
I'm not sure I can fault people for seeing the obvious opportunity to gain additional attacks.

So you're admitting that the whole vestigial arm + 2 claws and a bite thing was an attempt (some might say "cheesy attempt", but not me) to gain additional (AKA "extra") attacks, which it specifically disallows..?

Ok, that was a cheap dig, sorry, couldn't help myself :) Feel free not to respond to that.


littlehewy wrote:
Rathyr wrote:
I'm not sure I can fault people for seeing the obvious opportunity to gain additional attacks.

So you're admitting that the whole vestigial arm + 2 claws and a bite thing was an attempt (some might say "cheesy attempt", but not me) to gain additional (AKA "extra") attacks, which it specifically disallows..?

Ok, that was a cheap dig, sorry, couldn't help myself :) Feel free not to respond to that.

I was speaking about natural attacks as a broader issue, you cheeky monkey!

/sits littlehewy down for a talk
/rants about how V-arms doesn't give extra attacks, only a new avenue for iteratives for the 123874th time


Elamdri wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
The system is built assuming the PCs are normal PC-race humanoids, not freaks.

Man, way to go Sean. Now my Tusked Half-Orc is in the corner, crying about how no one loves him because he looks different. Do ya feel good about yourself now?

;)

I was half tempted to link the "THATS RACIST" meme...

Cooler heads prevailed.


Rathyr wrote:

I was speaking about natural attacks as a broader issue, you cheeky monkey!

/sits littlehewy down for a talk
/rants about how V-arms doesn't give extra attacks, only a new avenue for iteratives for the 123874th time

*chuckle

Designer

Quandary wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
It doesn't matter if you're making a headbutt and a punch, or a kick and a punch, or 2 kicks, or 2 punches, you're just making two attacks per round. At no time would you ever be able to justify a BAB +0 creature with no natural weapons making 2 punches AND 2 kicks per round

Iteratives work differently than natural attacks (which are dependent on how many natural attacks you have, not BAB),

so the idea of doubling the number of iterative attacks has NOTHING to do with the topic otherwise being discussed here.

Which is why I said a BAB +0 creature: we're talking about someone who doesn't have iterative attacks, and has no way of getting more than 2 attacks per round using the Core Rulebook. That is the baseline.

Quandary wrote:
I already posted several examples of bestiary creatures using 2wf or multiweapon fighting and making 2 or more natural attacks BEYOND the iterative attacks.

Ahem.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

I'm not going to get into specifics of comparing various monsters using weapons and natural attacks; monsters don't have to follow the normal rules for PCs and they're going to be inappropriate examples for determining what PCs are able to do because monsters break PC rules all the time ("how did that dark naga gain the spellcasting of a sorcerer 7 if it doesn't have any sorcerer Hit Dice?")

^^^

Rathyr wrote:
However, I am wondering if that original intent should continue to be the status quo? With the so many classes/races/archetypes/items giving players the ability generate natural attacks, I'm not sure I can fault people for seeing the obvious opportunity to gain additional attacks.

That's design creep and power creep. You have to design for the baseline (both in terms of what the normal limits are and what the normal power level is), otherwise every new book pushes the envelope a little further, and soon enough characters built with just the Core Rulebook are a level weaker than characters built with the newest sourcebooks. That's really, really bad for a game and for a publisher.


I think, if you guys can fit it in, an explanation of the Unarmed Strike / natural attacks thing in the CRB could be useful. I really don't recall anything about it, although it is mentioned in passing in the flurry rules. Maybe I'm just not seeing it though

Designer

It's on page 182, but doesn't give details on weird creatures (because it's written assuming the reader is a player with a normal PC).


Ok, I think I've got it. It's the last paragraph on that page, and the reason it's the case is that unarmed attacks is "limb agnostic", so it counts, for the case of rules, as all limbs when you make an unarmed attack.

Man, with an exceedingly strict reading of unarmed attacks, Unarmed Attacks are only punches, kicks, and head butts :)

Can you think of anything else off the top of your head where the rules are written with "normal PCs" in mind, but might differ with "less than normal PCs"? No need to go into them, but at least so we're aware that Here Be Dragons.

Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, the lift/carry rules focus on humanoid characters but add notes for quadrupeds and such. The Climb rules refer to having "hands free," which ignores that snakes can climb without hands and elephants can't even if they did. The Acrobatics (jump) rules are similar (elephants aren't so good at jumping). The spellcasting rules say you need a hand free for somatic components. The magic item body slots are based on a humanoid body. The weapon rules refer to 1H and 2H weapons, and so on.


I have to say, this is fast becoming my favorite thread.
Absolutely love the input here! =D

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Core Rulebook 1st level Sorcerer can pull off 4 attacks in one round.

Baseline.


*scratches head*

Um...correct me if I'm wrong but...this restriction of not being able to combine TWF with unarmed strikes along with 'natural weapons'...only seems to apply to claws. Is this not correct?

Like, from the implications I'm getting...in order to two-weapon fight with unarmed strikes...you need to have both your hands free...and both your 'feet' free...is that what is being suggested?


who knows, it's not what the RAW says,
if people want to post their personal home rules here, fine,
but they can actually specify what those home rules are if they are going to mention them.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

There seems to be a lot I was unaware of.

I wish I knew about these unwritten rules, and rules that, at least to me, were hidden within other rules.

If things go as they seem to be going, I may have to relearn the entire system.

I figured with all the 3.5 experience and playing Pathfinder from Alpha Playtest would give me a better grasp on things.

I guess I was wrong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

...honestly...I'm actually starting to question if I am even allowed to use unarmed strikes in combination with natural attacks at all.

That's not what the rules say (obviously), but from what is being suggested...if I use my claws as natural weapons...my unarmed strikes won't work because I have somehow exceeded a two-weapon fighting baseline that I never even knew existed.

Truth be told, unarmed fighting and 'natural weapons' have always been a little under-powered when compared to other things, and I figured that the only way to actually keep up with the damage output of other classes was to find clever ways of 'legally' adding more natural weapons and unarmed strikes together.

That way, you can actually get some decent millage out of that 'overpriced' amulet of mighty fists.

Like, if you can stack two-weapon fighting with unarmed strikes ON TOP of natural weapons...then the amulet actually starts to give you back some pretty decent value.

Silver Crusade

Once you have 3 natural attacks, the Amulet of Mighty Fists actually gives you a net gain in terms of power for money when compared to a regular weapon.

A +1 Weapon is 2000g

a +1 Amulet of Mighty Fists is 5000G

if you have 2 NA, that's 2500g per attack (Costs us more money)
if you have 3 NA, that's ~1666g per attack (Saving us quite a bit per attack)
if you have 4 NA, that's 1250g per attack
If you have 5 NA, that's 1000g per attack (1/2 of what it costs for a weapon).

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I am not pleased with being told how wrong at everything I am.

I am a Rules consort for two different DMs, and I am not sure I can do that job anymore.

I feel very close to being a broken player now.


This is true, but it doesn't scale in level that way.

Enchanting two manufactured weapons and using them to 'two-weapon fight' will actually grant you far greater value (especially when you can reach 7 attacks when two-weapon fighting in this manner...while additional natural attacks are MUCH harder to obtain).

On a side note, according to what I understand of Sean's explanation, it seems that you are also not allowed to two-weapon fight with a two-handed greatsword and a kick either.

Again, it seems like because your 'two hands' are no longer free...it makes it impossible to instead rely on a kick to make your off-hand attack because you're doing something beyond what 'two limbs' can do.

Again, if I'm wrong, please correct me...cause like I said...I is a little confoosed.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Why are my PC's legs not limbs?

How could I have been so wrong, about everything?

Is how I have been doing everything a bad thing?

Should I feel bad?

I mean, I taught a number of my ways to children.

It breaks my heart to know that my words were filled with untruth.

I am not even sure where to start with my relearning.

I feel bad.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

to be clear, i was rather disappointed with SKR's last post:
he continues the meme of '+0 BAB dude with no natural weapons, using 2wf, is the baseline'
without still addressing WHY this mystery concept of 'baseline' over-rules the other rules,
much less concretely defining what these 'baseline inferred rules' are and who they apply to.
(e.g. troglodyte or tengu or Dragon Disciple with claws and bite, vs. other monsters 2wf/MWF'ing + bite/tail/etc)

people take feats to gain extra attacks, natural weapons, other abilities, to go outside the baseline.
without those feats, yes, every human is pretty much the same, but PCs/NPCs take these 'Feats' to do stuff outside the ordinary.
if I took Feats to gain natural weapons, i expect to gain more attacks than i had before-hand, and for those attacks to be subject to the rules for combining with iteratives, namely the same-limb rule. NOT subject to the 'don't make +0 BAB Bob feel jealous because he can't double up on his iterative UAS attacks (like nobody else can) and he doesn't have natural weapons to use on top' secret rule.

certainly, i understand that these 'baselines' are used by paizo when designing further splat material as well as adventure design, but that doesn't convert it into the realm of something able to change how the RAW works for other characters.

he refused to address the specific cases of 2wf/multiweapon fighting bestiary creatures who still can make 2 or more natural weapon attacks on top of the iteratives, making some aside about nagas. as it happens, nagas have a specific rule (racial ability) saying they cast like sorcerors. there is no such special rule for these others, and the way they are combining 2wf/multiweaponfighting with additional natural weapons is in fact IN LINE with the RAW for doing that in the combat chapter. if there is a secret rules exception, i'm not clear exactly what it is, much less what it is modifying in the first place.

he then goes on to desribe design creep/power creep, and how horrible that is... which is definitely true, but what's also definitely true is that such creep is exactly what we've seen with APG+UM+UC+ARG and other splat material. i mean, i can certainly understand and empathize that paizo has put out some material that did stray too far from the baseline, but that doesn't change how the rules work.


Well, SKR said what the RAW is. It's not what they had in mind for RAI.

"And yes, the rules say that if you're using a manufactured weapon or unarmed strikes, you CAN use them in conjunction with natural attacks, "so long as a different limb is used for each attack.""

It's not what they intended, and it may be consider "abuse" of the rules, but I'd take that with a grain of salt. If you have 5 attacks at level 1 in a RP heavy group, then I would agree with SKR's label of abuse. If the rest of the party is optimizing and the DM is giving you guys a tough challenge and everyone is on-board? Combine those attacks!

Context matters for some of these builds. Eking every last bit of optimization out of a build can be GREAT fun, assuming that's what the group enjoys (DM included). A "freak" multiple attack class can ruin a game... but so can a God Wizard. It's up to the players and DM to have a power level ceiling (and maybe even a floor) that they all agree on.

So yea, BBT and Dusk, don't feel bad. You had the RAW 'right'. And it still is 'right', even if it wasn't intended that way (until they make some official errata).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I think I just had my feelings hurt.


It is all a bit confusing, I'll admit, but I'm not sure guilt-tripping a dev when they take the time to come and try to explain/clarify stuff is the best way to get them to continue engaging in discussion with us...

Having said that, the way I'm understanding what SKR is saying is that RAI is that claws essentially replace unarmed strikes.

Does that make sense to anyone else? I'm not saying that's what RAW says, but basically it seems to be the way the rules are intended to work.

I hope SKR returns to keep chatting about this.

Edit: Seconded that yes BBT and DB, as far as uas and nat weapons go, you had a correct interpretation of RAW, it's just not perhaps what the intention of the designers was.


Don't feel bad. Guessing at RAI is a Fool's Errand. Im assuming no one had an idea about this baseline. Playing by RAW (with a healthy dose of moderation and observation) is my recipe for happiness.


And let's be honest, there's a lot of rules, and they can't all be explained in perfect detail for every situation. That's why we have to interpret them as befits our group when we play.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Wait.

So, SKR is simply stating RAI, and my understanding of RAW is still correct?


As far as I can tell, the RAI is that a player never exceeds his base attacks + one additional source (typically TWF or natural attacks). That is what I *think* their intent is.

Base attacks + TWF OR natural attacks. Not both. Note that there is absolutely nothing in the rules stating this, just what I gathered from SKR's post. It's not an unreasonable baseline, but as others have pointed out, from a power standpoint, TWF is widely considered inferior to Two Handers, which doesn't need to jump through hoops to get the big damage in.


that's what i understood, and after I wrote more or less the same thing, he quoted my post while letting that statement stand (he didn't respond directly to affirm yes/no re: RAW/RAI, which would obviously have saved some grief). so i've taken him as implicitly recognizing the RAW we know and understand, even if his asides on RAI and 'baselines' weren't expressed in a way distinct from RAW discussion as possible, not to mention the matter of fleshing that RAI out fully.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Wait.

So, SKR is simply stating RAI, and my understanding of RAW is still correct?

Yes.

And yes, the rules say that if you're using a manufactured weapon or unarmed strikes, you CAN use them in conjunction with natural attacks, "so long as a different limb is used for each attack."


I have never interpreted RAW as you have BBT, but that's because we've filled in the gaps differently. As far as I can tell from RAW, you are not incorrect.

It's a situation of "RAW doesn't explicitly say I can or can't do this, so I reckon I can/can't." You just chose "can" where I chose "can't" :)

And SKR obviously chose "can't" too.

I do hope he pops back in though...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Well, I don't feel so bad anymore.

As I said, a Core Rulebook only Sorcerer can make 4 attacks at first level.

Draconic Bloodline Claws + Armor Spikes + Unarmed Strike.

Baseline.


Except SKR did say you can. He obviously wasn't very impressed with it, stated it wasn't the intent, and that it was essentially abusing the system (but still the RAW).


Wow, if everyone on the boards had such nice arguments as us, there'd never be a grumpy poster!


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Wait.

So, SKR is simply stating RAI, and my understanding of RAW is still correct?

More or less, yeah.

Then again, even if he did state some "new RAW", I'm free to disregard it like the errata that has come in the past.


the matter re: RAW is just that if the RAI were more broad re: restrictions on combining iteratives with natweapons, why even mention the 'same limb' rule if the same space could have been spent on a broader restriction that ALSO covers the 'same limb' cases? and given that the bestiary cases of 2wf/MWF users with extra natural attacks DON'T have special wording excepting them from the combat rules (like nagas have granting them sorceror casting), there's no reason to think that the same rules aren't applying to everybody (modified by the different rules specifically and explicitly applying to different characters).

but overall, this is such a complicated game that not even developers can understand and remember all of it (not talking about Sean himself), there's several archetypes that have abilities that do nothing (Pole-Arm Fighter weapon Trip) as well as stuff like Prone Shooter. stuff like combining iterative attacks with natural weapons IS pretty rare, so nobody is going to have as much experience with it as other stuff, and there's obviously the tendency to say 'is it wierd? is it powerful? it must be wrong'. the same thinking seems behind the semi-common aversion to the 'rage cycle' concept, even though that's been affirmed as intent by other developers (and the entire rage round and rage power concept was invented from scratch, so there wasn't any 3.x heritage to create clashing expectations, but people still think it's 'cheating').


Rathyr wrote:
Except SKR did say you can. He obviously wasn't very impressed with it, stated it wasn't the intent, and that it was essentially abusing the system (but still the RAW).

Lol well I guess I'm just better at understanding the unwritten intent and assumed "common-sense" of the designers than I am at reading and understanding the specifics minutiae of the written rules - I can live with that, I don't play PFS :)

251 to 300 of 358 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / What Exactly Is a 'Tentacle Attack'? (Old debate, but still don't care) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.