|
Hey everyone,
With a rules forum thread and talking to some other friends who have a good list of dev clarifications, I am as near certain as possible that this is something not covered anywhere in the rules, the FAQ, or past clarifications.
A player's PFS concept hinges on whether natural weapons count as light or one-handed weapons. Literally the only place this is defined is in the "Special" clause of Weapon Finesse, which states that they are considered as light weapons. There are two schools of thought on this matter, and both have valid points--
1) The Special clause of Weapon Finesse only applies to the Weapon Finesse feat, and furthermore the fact that they felt the need to assert this fact at all in the Special clause indicates that the writers do not believe that natural weapons are ordinarily light weapons, so they inserted the clause to make specific trump general. It's most likely that natural weapons are neither light, nor one-handed, nor two-handed, but instead their own classification.
2) Since it doesn't say anything about it anywhere else in the rules, the Weapon Finesse feat's Special clause creates a universal rule that natural weapons are always considered light weapons.
There's also a third, which I subscribe to more-or-less.
3) The Special clause doesn't say anything one way or the other, and we need a clarification in order to know which way to go. Without a strong enough reason to disallow it, if I was blindsided by a character using this fact, I would allow it, but I know many GMs would do otherwise and rightfully so.
The player agrees that both readings are reasonable, and he has plenty of time to change his build (and he doesn't mind) if it is ruled against him. He's just worried about playing up to level 7 and then having the idea (Duelist class using bite attacks "so I can parry with my face" as he puts it) work inconsistently.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Hmm...
Personally (for whatever that's worth) I think natural attacks are to be treated as light weapons. I say this because the line in Weapon Finesse doesn't say "treated as light for the purposes of..." or anything like that. In fact, the feat already has a list of "not light but Finessable anyway" weapons, and natural attacks aren't listed. It just says they're light.
It reads far more like an "in case you didn't know" than a "this is a special exception". Without any other text stating otherwise, I'd go with that.
But again, that's just me.
|
Interesting question; natural weapons do not seem to be called out as a specific type. However, regardless of which case is correct in general, the weapon finesse feat explicitly states that natural weapons are considered light weapons if you have it. It does not say that natural weapons are only treated as light for the purpose of the feat. Thus, if a player had the feat, I would rule that they could use any light weapon-only abilities with natural weapons.
Since Duelist requires the weapon finesse feat, it seems to me that the player's build should work regardless.
|
|
It reads far more like an "in case you didn't know" than a "this is a special exception". Without any other text stating otherwise, I'd go with that.
On the other hand, when Prone Shooter came out, we didn't go back and add in a penalty for shooting from prone if you didn't have the feat. If it was an "in case you didn't know", then it should exist somewhere else in the rules, and it just doesn't. Not saying your hunch is wrong, just saying I understand both sides and wouldn't fault a GM who ruled that it didn't work, even though I would let it work for the player (especially since it's not exactly a power build).
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I wonder how much time will have to pass before the "Prone Shooter exists, therefore this text might not mean what it says" argument goes away.
Is it possible that the text doesn't mean what it says? Yes.
Should that possibility stop us from adjudicating as though it means what it says? No.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm... "parry with my face"? I don't think so. Claws, maybe, but a bite "weapon" just seems to have too little substance compared to the exposure you'd create by sticking your face in the path of someone's bastard sword. Parrying with a natural weapon seems like it should expose you to damage, since by definition the weapon is hitting you.
I know this isn't a RAW answer, but it's the sort of thought process a lot of GMs go through when deciding whether to allow something questionable or not in the middle of the game. If he wants to be sure it will always work the same way, he should build a character without the need for grey-area interpretation. Otherwise, you pays your money and you takes your chances.
|
|
The real question is exactly what the player needs to know about natural weapons?
They are considered as light weapons as far as Weapon Finesse goesd.
They are classified as primary or secondary. When making attacks with natural weapons only, primary natural weapon attacks take no penalty to attack, no matter how many are used to gether, secondary, if used in conjunction with one or more primary natural weapon attacks, take a -5 to hit.
Primary natural weapon attacks, if used in conjunction with "manufactured" weapon attacks, take a -5 penalty to hit.
I believe there is written somewhere when and how natural weapon attacks can do .5, 1 or 1.5 X damage on attacks.
Some of this information, IIRC, comes out of the Bestiary rather than the CRB, and, other than for special rules for class builds (e.g. Natural Weapon Rangers), most of the rules on Natural Weapons will be found in the Bestiaries, including relevant feats, which contain the informationo n what happens without said feat. Multi-attack, or something with a similar name, should contain information on mixed weapon attacks.
Sorry I dono't have anything more specific for you, but I am away from my rulebooks right now.
|
|
I wonder how much time will have to pass before the "Prone Shooter exists, therefore this text might not mean what it says" argument goes away.
The point is that the text of a feat does not have universal rules scope--it can only tell you about that one feat. Prone Shooter is an example of this, but it isn't a necessary one for the principle to apply. If Spell Focus said "Special: Wizards cannot carry mithral weapons", it would only mean wizards with Spell Focus cannot carry mithral weapons (though it could be an argument in both ways as to whether wizards in general could carry them).