Bear in mind tentacles and vestigial arms don't allow you to add to your total attacks, be they natural, manufactured, or unarmed strikes ;)
Crap, I just went there, didn't I...
That sounds pretty awesome.
And I'm surprised that this thread is still going.
I'm so confused.
So either the tentacle is or isn't a secondary natural attack. Which is it?
Like, if my 2nd level Alchemist elf stabs a guy with a poisoned dagger, he cannot then make a secondary natural attack with the tentacle to try and grab him, even if he takes the -5 for making a secondary attack and half the strength bonus to damage?
But the feral mutagen Alchemist gets to stab with the poisoned dagger and then make not one but two extra natural attacks, with no penalty to either because they're primary attacks? One of which is a d8?
And the tradeoff is that the tentacle can hold one extra thing, but can't do anything with it unless he coughs up an action?
Um, what?
Feral Combat Training allows you to Flurry with the selected Natural Weapon.
In this case, being the Tentacle.
Cool, so long as it doesn't increase your total amount of attacks, like the specific rule says...
Seriously, that's the last one :)
I'm so confused.
So either the tentacle is or isn't a secondary natural attack. Which is it?
Like, if my 2nd level Alchemist elf stabs a guy with a poisoned dagger, he cannot then make a secondary natural attack with the tentacle to try and grab him, even if he takes the -5 for making a secondary attack and half the strength bonus to damage?
But the feral mutagen Alchemist gets to stab with the poisoned dagger and then make not one but two extra natural attacks, with no penalty to either because they're primary attacks? One of which is a d8?
And the tradeoff is that the tentacle can hold one extra thing, but can't do anything with it unless he coughs up an action?
Um, what?
It could be loosely defined as a natural attack with exceptions. It's mostly meant as a attack/grab option that you trade for another attack, or a way to hold or do other stuff while your hands are occupied.
People are acting like a lot changed due to this, but the only thing that I've seen is the Unarmed Strike / natural attacks thing where natural attacks 'use up' unarmed strikes. Well, and the tentacle thing, but that's been known for a while. Did I miss something? You can still combine natural attacks and weapons to get past your BAB-based attacks.
To be honest Cheapy...I have no idea.
It seems like if you use 'certain' natural weapons...you basically are unable to make unarmed strikes.
I'm assuming this restriction would apply if you use something like hooves (feet), talons (feet), or claws (hands). If you use a natural attack on one of these limbs...u basically can't make an unarmed strike.
At least, that's what I understand.
The tentacle discovery *sigh* makes no sense either. Effectively what you 'can' do is give up an attack you could 'normally make' in order to gain the tentacle attack instead (mind you that you can only do this once per round according to devs).
The way you can do this is as such: if you have bite/claw/claw from feral mutagen...u basically have to 'give up' one of those attacks in order to gain the 'tentacle attack'.
HOWEVER
What I 'normally' would advise you to do is combine your feral mutagen attacks with unarmed strikes (for example, if you have a BAB of +6/+1...u can essentially make 2 unarmed strikes...and u don't even need to be proficient with them).
As such, you can basically 'give up' your 'unarmed strike', in order to make the following attacks
claw/claw/bite/tentacle (and you basically don't bother making your second unarmed strike...that way all you're using is your natural attacks and you don't have to reduce the primary ones to secondary).
However, according to what Sean has said...well...I have no idea if this works or not.
Keep in mind that just because you have 3 primary attacks, the 'maximum number' of attacks you can make is actually a bit higher (since you COULD combine natural attacks with unarmed strikes). So, if you had a BAB of +1 (with unarmed strikes as your weapon) and you basically add that to your natural attacks...and THEN add in the fact that you can TWF with unarmed strikes...your maximum number of attacks then becomes 5 at level 2 (technically).
So as far the term 'cannot make extra attacks' is concerned...as long as your 'tentacle attack' stays under the baseline of 5 (for a level 2 alchemist anyway), you can basically make the 4 attacks of claw/claw/bite/tentacle...because you have not exceeded this maximum (I really hope this still makes sense).
But like I said, this 'baseline' Sean suggests...I honestly don't understand. I mean, a level 2 alchemist with feral mutagen is afforded 3 attacks...but given the baseline of 'unarmed strikes'...it would seem that he can only make 2 of those attacks because the baseline for his two-weapon fighting is 2.
As I said, I don't get it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's what I've taken from all of this. The relevant text is in spoilers. I still think this needs to be clarified a bit more in the CRB, as I don't think it's as clear as it could be (as evidenced by all the posts by Sean explaining it).
Attacks of Opportunity: Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed. The attack of opportunity comes before your attack. An unarmed attack does not provoke attacks of opportunity from other foes, nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe.
An unarmed character can't take attacks of opportunity (but see “Armed” Unarmed Attacks, below).
“Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).
Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity).
Unarmed Strike Damage: An unarmed strike from a Medium character deals 1d3 points of bludgeoning damage (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). A Small character's unarmed strike deals 1d2 points of bludgeoning damage, while a Large character's unarmed strike deals 1d4 points of bludgeoning damage. All damage from unarmed strikes is nonlethal damage. Unarmed strikes count as light weapons (for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties and so on).
Dealing Lethal Damage: You can specify that your unarmed strike will deal lethal damage before you make your attack roll, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll. If you have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, you can deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike without taking a penalty on the attack roll.
natural attacks (attacks made without a weapon). These
attacks fall into one of two categories: primary or
secondary attacks. Primary attacks are made using the
creature’s full base attack bonus and add the creature’s
full Strength bonus on damage rolls. Secondary attacks
are made using the creature’s base attack bonus – 5 and
add only 1/2 the creature’s Strength bonus on damage
rolls. If a creature has only one natural attack, it is always
made using the creature’s full base attack bonus and adds
1-1/2 times the creature’s Strength bonus on damage
rolls. This increase does not apply if the creature has
multiple attacks but only takes one. If a creature has only
one type of attack, but has multiple attacks per round,
that attack is treated as a primary attack, regardless of its
type. Table 3–1 lists some of the most common types of
natural attacks and their classifications.
Some creatures treat one or more of their attacks
differently, such as dragons, which always receive
1-1/2 times their Strength bonus on damage rolls with
their bite attack. These exceptions are noted in the
creature’s description.
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.
Some creatures do not have natural attacks. These
creatures can make unarmed strikes just like humans
do. See Table 3–1 for typical damage values for natural
attacks by creature size.
I've highlighted the important parts for this. Note that there are some differences in how the CRB's section on natural attacks work and how the UMR's section works, primarily around where the bolded section is. Due to the above discussion about how monsters sometimes use different rules than PCs, maybe I posted the wrong version, but we've had quite a few confirmations in the past that the UMR applies to PCs as well.
Unarmed Strikes, in the rules, are not based on any limbs. For the purpose of it, you're using all limbs. This is why the bolded section of Flurry of Blows exists. Since you are using unarmed strikes, all your limbs have been "used", so you can't make natural attacks, as the limb associated with the natural attack has already been "used" by unarmed strikes.
When your whole body is a deadly weapon, saying "oh but I also have deadly claws and a deadly bite" doesn't make a difference because you already had deadly punches and a deadly headbutt.
If the PCs don't use the Universal Monster Rules, then
Some natural attacks are denoted as secondary natural attacks, such as tails and wings. Attacks with secondary natural attacks are made using your base attack bonus minus 5. These attacks deal an amount of damage depending on their type, but you only add half your Strength modifier on damage rolls.
You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack. For example, you cannot make a claw attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a longsword. When you make additional attacks in this way, all of your natural attacks are treated as secondary natural attacks, using your base attack bonus minus 5 and adding only 1/2 of your Strength modifier on damage rolls. Feats such as Two-Weapon Fighting and Multiattack can reduce these penalties.
then it still actually works out this way. This one mentions unarmed strikes, and you could still use them, regardless of which Natural attack section it uses, but the limb rule still applies. In my understanding of this, if you have more unarmed strikes than natural attacks, you can still use the unarmed strikes. It's only when you have more natural attacks than unarmed strikes does it get wonky, as the natural attacks are "using up" the limbs, aka using up the attacks, you could be making with unarmed strikes.
To be honest, this whole thing reminds me of spell-like abilities. SLAs are defined in 3 different places (Combat chapter, Magic Chapter, and UMR chapter of bestiary), and at one point the rules were not the same across all three. I think the difference had something to do with being able to counterspell.
The natural attack rules could use a scrubbing to make it more clear how these work with unarmed attacks. Suggestions I have would be to make it explicit that unarmed attacks count as "all limbs" and the effects that this has, including --
Ok, just had one of those epiphany moments. If you're attacking with a greatsword, you're using your two hands. Say you have BAB +6 / +1. The number of unarmed attacks you can make is based on your BAB, the same with manufactured weapons. They use the same "pool" of attacks available from BAB too. So, you full-attack with the greatsword. You are not able to then say "well, I just used my hands for those attacks, so I can still get two kicks in." (Ignore TWF for now. That's a specific exception to the rules.) Why? Because you've used up a subset of "all your limbs" to make the attacks, so that means you can't get an unarmed attack in. This same principle applies to natural attacks. The reason you can still make natural attacks don't count as "all limbs", just the limbs that use them.
-- how you can't make natural attacks and then attacks with unarmed strikes, since those "limbs" are used up. I don't think the lack of specifying that you choose a body part for unarmed attacks is enough.
Also, I greatly appreciate the much more civil tone now that we're all just trying to figure out how the game works.
I'm also curious as to which limb armor spikes use. Conceptually, it's a shoulder "bash" in my mind, so I think it'd be using the arms? That kind of makes sense given Mark Moreland's post on "spiked armor and limbs" here where he talked with Jason and he agreed that spiked armor would need the free limb. Guess that's another thing that could use clarification in the rules, as Jason agreed it's not so clear.
edit: I guess I answered my own question.
Arrg.
Once again, the 2nd level Alchemist makes an attack with manufactured weapon (a stabbity dagger) - can he or can he not then attack with the tentacle, with the appropriate -5/half damage listed in the natural attacks monster rules?
Is this an "extra attack" in relation to a humanoid alchemist's normal attacks, or is it not, in relation to his freaky tentacled monstritisness?
Must he choose either/or? Because if it's on par with a manufactured weapon, seems to me that he could full attack and hit with it multiple times once his BAB had progressed past 6. But I believe SKR specifically said no to that one.
It is an extra attack, so he cannot make the tentacle attack and the stabbity dagger attack. He can make the tentacle attack instead of the stabbity dagger attack.
Normal situation, without using exceptions to the rules: level 2 alchemist receives 1 attack.
If he could add the tentacle on when full-attacking, that'd be 2 attacks when full attacking, which is more than his normal situation since he now has an extra attack.
Furthermore, the tentacle discovery explicitly says "The tentacle does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round," meaning "count how many attacks per round you can make if you didn't have the tentacle... having the tentacle doesn't change that number at all." If you have 1 attack per round, the tentacle doesn't increase that to 2. If you have 2 attacks per round, the tentacle doesn't increase that to 3. If you have 3 attacks per round, the tentacle doesn't increase that to 4. End of story.
Missing all the embolding he did, but meh.
The tentacle discovery is not a normal natural attack. Normal natural attacks let you get extra attacks above and beyond your normal attack routine. If this level 2 alchemist had a bite attack from his race or whatever, he could get an extra attack, the bite, from his normal attack routine by using the bite attack as a part of it. This would be his natural attack + normal attack routine ... routine.
@joeyfixit
I believe the answer, RAI, is that the alchemist can make a second attack with the tentacle but at the same penalty as if he were TWF (and perhaps even with the added -5 secondary natural weapon penalty?).
I get that from just using the method described by the devs of counting attacks without the tentacle which would be two given that he has one attack with a dagger and he can also strike with his offhand. Then just applying the same to an attack sequence with a tentacle instead of the offhand strike.
I think that's what's intended?
edit: I thought I had it...now I'm not even sure.
Thank you, cheapy.
If that's true, why does this appear to be so much worse than the feral mutagen? Couldn't they have dropped the grab feature and given you that iterative attck?
I think the whole reason they have the "no extra attacks" part is due to grab, so that would make sense, although I am not the original author. As far as I remember, at least.
The "not using any exceptions" bit I was referring to was TWF. I believe that if you're using TWF, you can use the tentacle. What you can't do is use TWF to get an extra attack (so your alchemist has two stabbity dagger attacks, with two stabbity daggers) and then get the tentacle attack, since this would be getting an extra attack.
@joeyfixit
I believe the answer, RAI, is that the alchemist can make a second attack with the tentacle but at the same penalty as if he were TWF (and perhaps even with the added -5 secondary natural weapon penalty?).
I get that from just using the method described by the devs of counting attacks without the tentacle which would be two given that he has one attack with a dagger and he can also strike with his offhand. Then just applying the same to an attack sequence with a tentacle instead of the offhand strike.
I think that's what's intended?
Yep, you've nailed it. And I believe it does take the -5.
The general gist is, I believe, that you replace an attack you could make with the tentacle to get the grab.
Also, a tentacle is a good contender for holding your rod of absorption. Or playing out anime fantasies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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?
Because I didn't write the rule for combining natural attacks and unarmed strikes.
Because I didn't develop the rule for combining natural attacks and unarmed strikes.Because there is a lot in the book that's not clear.
Because the rules for unarmed strikes are deliberately left vague so you could have a punch-focused character or a kick-focused character, without needing to have separate game mechanics for each type of limb used for an unarmed strike.
Because there's a lot in the book that's inherited from 3.5, and the focus was on fixing big obvious problems (like "all barbarians are basically identical" and "all rogues are basically identical") and there wasn't much time to address little problems (like "combining natural attacks and other attacks is confusing").
Because the Core Rulebook and Bestiary were written at basically the same time, and the rules for this weren't synched up until after publication, and we made the best of what we had at the time, in a way that didn'r require a major change or addition to the existing text.
I don't see how it's confusing. You can use it to hold stuff, or you could use it with TWF to make an attack, or you could use it in place of a claw while you're using feral mutagen. But if it's confusing to you, then feel free to avoid it. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can just see the errata now:
"Creatures hit by the alchemist's tentacle from this discovery are confused for 1 round unless they succeed on a Will save."
Can it help me hold a Greatsword? I mean, along with another hand.
RAI. If it can, then you can't use your other hand for anything except to hold an item.
Man, look at the cool things you can do with Vestigial Arm and or Tentacle:
Arm: carry a extra weapon of a different DR type, or a readied potion or wand or rod. Use a shield and also two weapons. You can have cold iron, silver, magic and adamantium all ready to use. Same with piercing, bludgeoning & slashing. Ranged AND melee.
Tentacle: allow the alchemist to use one hand to wield a weapon, the tentacle to hold a potion, and the third hand to throw a bomb. Or if disarmed, have a ready made nasty little surprise. Have fun smacking rust monsters. If attacked by something small and weak, like a stirge- use the tentacle to Grab- which is a free grapple.
In both cases: use your main arms to wave around and distract while your tentacle/arm is doing something behind your back.
And the cost? A class feature on the level of a rogue talent.
This is roleplaying and combat option coolness of the first order
@Cheapy: to clarify about UAS, when you make a UAS attack you AREN'T using 'all' limbs, you are using the specific limb you chose to make that UAS attack with. that is the entire point about Flurry working like 2wf. basically, each limb/body part (any and all parts for Monks, arm/leg/head for everybody else) is a potential UAS weapon. now UAS uses iteratives, and you don't gain more iterative attacks for having more weapons 'wielded', so you don't gain any extra attacks just because you can make UAS attacks with more body parts... but you gain more FLEXIBILITY in being able to have other parts of your body 'occupied', either carrying stuff in your hands (while you head-butt and kick), or using those limbs for their natural weapons. (carrying an item or using a natural attack are treated as equivalent for triggering the 'same limb exclusion' rule... which to me confirms that original intent of the rule was that you WOULD be making natural attacks if you have them)
discusing RAI/RAW for the 'combining iterative and natural weapon' rules, i don't think that when those rules were originally written (3.x) that RAI actually was different from RAW in any way. creatures like troglodytes have attack blocks that match this RAW. a tengu also gaining bite and 2 claws should have no reason NOT to work like a troglodyte with the same natural weapons, i.e. they should be able to still get bite and 1 claw while wielding a weapon in 1 hand, or both of them should be able to get all natural attacks on top of Kick UAS attacks (possibly with 2wf) - of course, one needs Improved UAS in order to not provoke AoOs when making Kick UAS attacks... And since there is no 'Gauntlet' equivalent for Kicks (like there is for Fists), most characters are incentivized to not Kick as much as Punch. But Improved UAS is a CORE Feat available to any PC, so taking advantage of it is hardly 'beyond the pale' of what PCs can do. No longer provoking with your Kicks makes it more viable to combine Kicks (possibly 2wf) with Claws, but otherwise there would be NO advantage to taking that Feat for somebody who already had Claws... So I don't really see an issue with taking a Feat (Improved UAS) being potentially beneficial to somebody who has Claws.
that said, when NEW MATERIAL is written, it is written in the context of existing rules... but it isn't necessarily written with ACCURATE appraisal of how the rules work/ how the new rules item may possibly be used by anybody who qualifies to take it. but that is a problem with the NEW material, not the old 'secretly' having some intent that prevents the problem with the new material. but whatever the RAI of the original 'combining iterative and natural attack' rules, they probably weren't fore-seeing EVERY possible case where said rules could apply, and they didn't need to - such rules didn't exist yet, and when a new rule is created in the future, the NEW rules writers need to make sure that their item is BALANCED in line with existing rules functioning.
when Paizo puts out material giving PCs three natural attacks from level 1, THAT is the problematic new material that is creating potential divergence from 'baseline'. stuff like Tentacle Discovery, which has specific verbiage restricting it beyond normal natural attack rules (saying it is used in place of normal BAB attacks) could conceivably have been applied to other new 'PC gains a natural attack' cases.
I do think the Tentacle discovery should SAY that it is still limited to 1 attack per full-attack (while still 'taking up' a BAB/iterative attack), since I don't think that is clear that it carries over with the 'attack replacement' aspect replacing how you normally accomplish the Tentacle attack. I would probably re-iterate that it does half-STR damage as well, which kind of goes along with those rules.
Huh? Various devs have stated many times that you don't choose a limb when making an unarmed strike. You can choose to flavor your attack however you want, but the rules for US don't get into specifics on what limbs you are using, and this is intentional from everything I can gather.
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.
Isn't that what that line means? You don't get to just say "oh, these unarmed attacks came from different limbs than the ones I clawed the goblin in the face with."
edit: Oh I see what you're saying now. Hmm. Basically, you're saying that using your hands to carry a potted plant doesn't stop you from using unarmed attacks, but using two claws does.
well, sean has gone into alot of stuff that diverges from RAW, which he acknowledged as being as it is written.
he also hasn't yet specified the actual details of any proposed alternate functionality for the rules, or who those apply to.
i believe i've seen similar mentions along the lines of what your refer to, but i believe those were more along the lines of 'it doesn't MATTER which limb you do UAS with since they are all doing identical effects per UAS', even if that wasn't expressed 100% accurately legalese-speak.
the existence of stuff like gauntlet, cestus, brass knuckles, rope gauntlets
all points to Fists being distinct 'weapons' from Kicks and Head-Butts.
those all make it so there definitely IS a difference between a Fist and a Head-Butt.
I'm not sure why UAS would be specified to be able to be done with Kicks, Fists, Head-Butts, if you never actually chose between those...
Never mind characters who are missing arms/legs, who would be required to 'dedicate' all of those limbs in order to make any UAS attack, if I'm reading your post correctly.
Just check out Magic Fang's wording:
EDIT: It's hard to read thru your sarcasm, but I'm not saying that at all.
THe only relevant restriction on combining iteratives and natural weapons is the same-limb rule.
Carrying an object and making an attack with a natural weapon on that limb are equivalent for that purpose.
Neither carrying an item in your arms/hands impedes Kicking, nor does making Claw attacks with your arm/hands impede Kicking.
Fists and Claws are on the same limb. Kicks and Claws are not.
Kicks would be on the same limb as Talons/Claws on Feet, and would run into similar problems re: same-limb combination.
I'm pretty sure that the intent is that those are weapons, not unarmed attacks. That's what they're all classified as.
Based on developer statements, I can only assume that list is not an exhaustive list. I find it hard to imagine that you can't knee someone, hit them with your elbow, slam them with your shoulder, or anything else. Or that only monks can use their elbows and knees. And that monks can't use headbutts.
Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:
A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet.
So, either monks can't actually headbutt people and only they can use their knees and elbows to attack, or the lists aren't exhaustive. I think the latter one makes more sense, personally.
---
I wasn't being sarcastic. I suddenly thought I understood what you were saying.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose I should point out that I really don't care what the RAW says if it differs from the Intent. The whole point of the written word is to get an idea across, and as you thinking I was being sarcastic so wonderfully illustrates, sometimes the word doesn't do so well :)
Bah, I thought I had a good explanation to tell others for why you can't use natural attacks and then claim you're using different limbs for Unarmed Attacks for more attacks, but now I'm wondering if there's a better explanation.
OK, but it doesn't really matter what the exhaustive list of UAS options specifically is (or whether any bodypart works), for 'normals' or monks.
magic fang's wording clearly specifies to ONE unarmed strike attack, with fist being an example.
using magic fang, attacking specifically with your fist would use different stats than with head-butt, kick, etc.
...which is pretty relevant to 2wf'ing (/flurry) just on it's own, as well.
the weapons i mentioned include wording like this:
if you can't use your fist because you're holding an item with it, i wouldn't let you benefit from gauntlet's negation of AoO.
actually, if UAS requires all limbs to use, that would be pretty damn relevant in a grapple where you can't take any actions that require two free hands. again, this is also 100% in line with the idea of 2wf'ing with UAS, if all UAS is 'one weapon' (you never select a specific one) it doesn't make sense to have a distinct off-hand UAS weapon.
EDIT: ok, so you think RAI for combining iteratives and natural attacks has always been different than RAW, since 3.x.
(as opposed to new material 'suddenly' making the same old RAW/RAI over-powered with the new options)
i'm still not clear on what this RAI function specifically is, nor who exactly it apples to...
are Troglodytes 'secret exceptions' to this rule, along with other bestiary creatures who are using Iterative full attacks/2wf/MWF along with more Natural Weapons on top? should Tengu who can have the same exact attacks as Troglodytes also be exempt, since they're obviously just as far outside the 'baseline'?
i'm still not clear why 2wf is the gold-standard of this secret baseline, why isn't haste/speed weapons relevant, or rapid shot, or monks blowing their ki for an extra attack, all also relevant to the 'baseline of # of attacks you can do, that somehow over-rules other rules regarding how many attacks you can make/ how many natural attacks you can combine with iteratives...?
I didn't literally mean "all limbs". You don't hit the enemy with every single limb for each attack. It was more a ... metaphorical sense.
I would also love clarification on those in this post-UE world, as there was a huge discussion awhile ago where Sean said that those type of weapons were weapons, not unarmed attacks. [url=http://paizo.com/products/btpy8dmf/discuss&page=13?Pathfinder-Player-Companion-Adventurers-Armory#610]They moved those to all be in the Light Weapons category of weapons in UE, not the unarmed strike category.[/b] I've always wondered about that bit you mentioned, but am happy with knowing what I believe is the intent.
Hmm...
Ok, Quandary, let's come up with an easy to understand explanation for the known intent.
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.
What do you think is a good way to explain this? I just want to be able to explain this to others.
The trogdolyte entry for attacks looks right to me. They aren't using TWF or MWF from what I can tell. It normally has 2 claws and a bite. When it's using a club, it's using up one of the claw hands, and the other two natural attacks they can use are at -5, as the rules for primary natural attacks used with weapons say. Would've said the same thing before this thread started too.
yeah, I would be glad for Sean to specify exactly what he means (distinct from RAW),
if it's an issue for all natural attacks and total number of attacks, or just claws,
and who exactly it applies to, e.g. Humans, Human Dragon Disciples, Tengu, Tengu w/ Claws, Troglodytes, the higher power 2wf/MWF creatures I mentioned up thread.
I'm not really at all clear what the intended scope is for, just from SKR's comments so far.
we don't really need those stated EXACTLY like it would appear in print if they were in a rule book, but I'm just not sure exactly what the parameters are supposed to be. perhaps Sean intends it to function like the type of wording we see on tentacle attack (in place of iterative attack), or perhaps there is some other function...?
if Paizo is really serious about it, then they should Errata the Combat chapter to match, albeit they should really also Errata the 'exception' creatures as well, in that case.
I'm starting to get the impression that you and I are talking about two different things.
What were the monsters who were using TWF/MWF to get more natural attacks?
The trogdolyte entry for attacks looks right to me. They aren't using TWF or MWF from what I can tell. It normally has 2 claws and a bite. When it's using a club, it's using up one of the claw hands, and the other two natural attacks they can use are at -5, as the rules for primary natural attacks used with weapons say. Would've said the same thing before this thread started too.
but the issue isn't whether they are using 2WF or not, it's that 2WF is supposed to be some sort of limiting baseline REGARDLESS of how you are attacking. a tengu with Bite and 2 Claws (or Troglodyte, pretty similar creatures, likewise anybody else with Claws and Bite such as Dragon Disciples) could also get 4 attacks (more than commoner human using 2wf, more than their own natural attacks) by Kicking NOT using 2WF, or 5 attacks Kicking WITH 2WF, which is legal per RAW. both of those choices of course have consequences, forcing all their attacks down to secondary with attendant penalties.
perhaps the baseline (for those it applies to) is NOT 'just' 2wf, but 2wf OR your total number of natural attacks? (monsters still violate this, as mentioned) That would be a good thing to clarify. I can't do that though, I can just see see the RAW.
i posted the other monsters up thread, it was pretty simple they were using weapons and had 2 or so more natural attacks on top. some of them could normally do slam with their arms, but were using them for weapons, but making iterative attacks with a limb nets alot more attacks than just slams.
Are you using a physical copy of the core rulebook? If so, which printing? It's on the credits page, very bottom.
not with me right now, i have the 1st copy though, supplemented by PRD online.
i can't follow up with this anymore right now, i do think it would be great if Sean clarifies his 'RAI'.
Hmm, I asked because one of your posts contained something about TWF penalties when attacking with natural attacks and weapons, and they got rid of that in one of the erratas...
Page 182—In the Attack section, in the Natural
Attacks section, in the third paragraph, delete the
following two sentences: “In addition, all of your
attacks made with melee weapons and unarmed
strikes are made as if you were two-weapon
f ighting. Your natural attacks are treated as light,
off-hand weapons for determining the penalty to
your other attacks.”
Then again, in the same post you mentioned "previous versions of the CRB" or something to that effect.
Do you have the CRB 5th printing PDF? Sometimes the PRD differs from the CRB.
yeah, i really have to go now :-), but definitely i did write about that older iteration of the CRB rules, and in light of all this stuff I thought it was/is probably better to apply those penalties in some way, even if we could have improved upon the exact way the CRB originally did it.
but that's why it seems bizarre for SKR to come and claim RAI existed all along, because they were forced to address that exact rule-set, and erred on the side of saying no penalties apply and the only restriction is same-limb, specifically EXCLUDING the concept of 2wf applying to iterative/natural combo's. in light of that, i don't see evidence of on-going RAI, but of them being surprised when their new material works with the RAW in a certain way.
or maybe that was just a bad judgement call when they reconciled the early CRB with Bestiary rules. that choice obviously DID make all the bestiary examples of weapon/naturalwpn combos work perfectly fine, though, so either that clarification had to happen OR all those monsters needed to have their attack combos Errata'd or be given a special ability exempting them from the normal function of weapon/naturalwpn combos.
I'm going to read this over again and come at it once more. Part of the issue may be that I don't see where the PCs are using different rules than monsters. I suspect that he just went along with what you were saying due to his comment on the sorcerer spell levels.
yeah, he basically isn't contesting the RAW at all, he's just positing this alternate 'RAI' approach, which we aren't exactly sure the details of 100%.
per RAW, there is no separate rule that applies to PCs vs. Monsters.
sean just said monsters can break rules because they are monsters, by which I assume his 'RAI' rule has some exception that won't change how these monsters function.
his example was nagas casting like sorcerors, even though they don't have sorceror levels.
of course, nagas have a specific ability letting them do that, so they AREN'T breaking any rules,
while these other monsters don't (currently, RAW) have anything that changes the combat rules.
those examples are explicitly using 2wf/MWF with more natural attacks on top, which is exactly what is being discussed with characters trying to use natural weapons in combo with iteratives (2wf or not).
but if you don't care about RAW, none of that matters, although it increases the scope of any potential Errata (if Sean's 'RAI' rule is put into the RAW somehow).
Well, when you get back, can you explain exactly where you see the rules splitting for PCs or monsters? Aka: What can monsters do that PCs cannot. And also the example monsters you're talking about. I wasn't able to find them in your previous posts.
ooh! Found the monsters.
Marilith: This looks fine with me, and I don't see any contradictions. The attack routines look right for how I understand the rules.
Same for the Vrolikai.
And same for the Tarry Demodand.
The attack bonuses are generally off by one from what I expected to see. I'm really not sure why that is. I'd expect the highest bonus for the marilith to be +25, not +24. The vrolikai seems like it should be at +30, not +29, with its daggers. The tarry seems like it should also be +1 over what it is. The tarry's bite attack looks to be the right bonuses.
I also don't see anything in them that contradict something Sean said. You can use TWF and natural attacks just fine. Maybe I missed something he said.
The idea that unarmed strikes are NOT limb specific kinda strikes me as rather odd. After all, there are many items for unarmed strikes that specifically only apply to a certain limb.
Take, for example, the gauntlet.
If I were to enchant a gauntlet (and use it in my fist obviously), I would argue that a player could not benefit from the gauntlet's damage if he didn't use the gauntlet when making his unarmed strike.
Like, if a play decided to use a 'kick attack' instead, then he would not be allowed to apply the damage (or special abilities) of their enchanted gauntlet to that attack.
There are also many 'magic items' that specifically effect a characters 'fists' (DELIQUESCENT GLOVES and FORGE FIST AMULET are just a few examples), so again there seems to be a distinction between using a characters 'feet' as opposed to using their 'hands'.
Also, as I mentioned before, it seems like restriction of applying unarmed strikes together with 'natural attacks' only applies to certain natural attacks. For example (and as far as I can tell), natural attacks such as wing attacks, bite attacks, and tail attacks all seem to be exempt from this rule (at least from my understanding anyway).
I suppose if has been already stated, but I guess I'll go ahead and say it again: there really isn't anything overpowered by using the 'previously understood' methods for combining natural attacks and unarmed strikes.
Sure, 5 attacks level 1 does seem rather daunting...but keep in mind that 3 of those attacks are at a -5 penalty (and 4 of the 5 are at half strength modifier, and you are rolling 1d3s if you are a Tengu). Granted, if you take multiattack at 2nd level (if you are a fighter) you can reduce the penalties to attack all to a -2, but this is really as far as the benefits go.
Yes, it is true that by combining unarmed strikes and natural attacks in this method, a character can easily obtain about 10 or 11 attacks on a full-round action (if they follow the two-weapon fighting tree, gain multiple natural attacks, and have a BAB of at least +16).
However, given the rules of the game...this really is just the 'nature of the beast'.
I still think that Gauntlet is a weapon, based on developer statements. Of course you couldn't get its advantage when kicking, just like you can't kick to get a greatsword's damage either :)
Interesting point on the forge fist amulet and deliquescent gloves. The guys who wrote that are generally pretty great with the rules, too. I guess a few possibilities here are that the dev statements I'm referring to are incorrect, the freelancers who authored those items got them wrong (which says a lot about how clear this is), or those rely on exceptions to the rule.
It could just be that the designers of Pathfinder have a different idea of what overpowered is compared to you. I do recall you being quite excited about how "pure natural attacks" characters weren't nearly as powerful as "natural attacks + unarmed attacks" characters, which does say quite a bit about how powerful you view natural attacks + unarmed attacks to be :) With pure natural attack characters being some of the strongest in the game already... Plus the AoMF would apply to all those extra attacks Mr. US TWF/Natural Attacks has over the pure natural attack user...