As far as I know there's no such rule. You can make an AoO with any weapon with wich you threaten. And you can do that with a tailblade.
If I remember right there are animals that only have secondary natural weapons. under this rule (which I've never read before) they would be unable to make AoOs. That sounds strange.
|
There is no rule preventing any creature from making AoOs with secondary natural attacks.
This rule does not exist.
You can attack with the Tailblade, you threaten with the Tailblade, and you can make AoO with the Tailblade.
Also, as this functions as a natural attack, unless you have another natural attack, this one is considered primary.
See natural attack rules here.
|
|
Also, the whole "If used as part of a full attack action, attacks with a tailblade are considered secondary attacks" is simply reminding you what happens when you combine natural attacks with weapon attacks.
To further point out that this is not "always secondary" is that it notes you add your Strength modifier to damage. Secondary natural attacks only add half of your Strength modifier to damage.
Primary natural attacks add your full Strength modifier to damage.
Also, as it is your only natural attack, you would add x1.5 your Strength modifier to damage.
The only time it will be secondary, is when you combine it with a weapon attack, during a full attack. That's it.
You friends are gravely mistaken on how natural attacks function.
|
|
For concrete, physical evidence, all you need is the Bestiary, and the Core.
In the Bestiary, you can point out how Natural Attacks work.
In the Core, you can point out the rules pertaining to AoO, as they make no mention of secondary natural attack restrictions.
As long as you have these two books available, you have tangible, physical evidence, that they are slamming you with made up rules.
Don't let them do it.
|
The only time it will be secondary, is when you combine it with a weapon attack, during a full attack. That's it.
No BBT:
quote=ARG]Tailblade: A tailblade is a small, sharp knife designed to be strapped to the tip of a wielder's tail. It takes a full-round action to strap on or remove a tailblade. The wearer can loosely attach the tailblade (without strapping it securely in place) as a move action, but using a loosely attached tailblade gives the wielder a –4 penalty on all attack rolls made with the weapon, and other creatures get a +4 bonus on disarm combat maneuver checks to disarm the tailblade. A ratfolk wielding a tailblade can make a tail attack, adding its Strength modifier to the tailblade's damage. Ratfolk are considered proficient with such attacks and can apply feats or effects appropriate to natural attacks to tail attacks made with a tailblade. If used as part of a full attack action, attacks with a tailblade are considered secondary attacks.
it is a secondary attack when used as part of a full attack, even if that full attack is done only with natural weapons.
|
|
As I said, that is a reminder of how natural attacks work with weapon attacks.
Read what you posted: "A ratfolk wielding a tailblade can make a tail attack, adding its Strength modifier to the tailblade's damage."
It does not say "add half your strength modifier" as is done with secondary natural attacks.
Also, note the rules for natural weapons: "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."
|
|
As I said, that is a reminder of how natural attacks work with weapon attacks.
Read what you posted: "A ratfolk wielding a tailblade can make a tail attack, adding its Strength modifier to the tailblade's damage."
It does not say "add half your strength modifier" as is done with secondary natural attacks.
Also, note the rules for natural weapons: "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."
What part of "If used as part of a full attack action, attacks with a tailblade are considered secondary attacks." say anything about manufactured weapons?
As I said, that is a reminder of how natural attacks work with weapon attacks.
It doesn't say anything about being combined with weapon attacks.
Tailblade: "A tailblade is a small, sharp knife designed to be strapped to the tip of a wielder's tail. It takes a full-round action to strap on or remove a tailblade. The wearer can loosely attach the tailblade (without strapping it securely in place) as a move action, but using a loosely attached tailblade gives the wielder a –4 penalty on all attack rolls made with the weapon, and other creatures get a +4 bonus on disarm combat maneuver checks to disarm the tailblade. A ratfolk wielding a tailblade can make a tail attack, adding its Strength modifier to the tailblade's damage. Ratfolk are considered proficient with such attacks and can apply feats or effects appropriate to natural attacks to tail attacks made with a tailblade. If used as part of a full attack action, attacks with a tailblade are considered secondary attacks."
Sentence 1: Fluff
Sentence 2: Action to equip
Sentence 3: Consequences of option in sentence 2
Sentence 4: Type of attack (tail) and Strength bonus
Sentence 5: Proficiency and status as a natural attack
Sentence 6: Special exception about being considered a secondary attack when used with a full attack action.
Read what you posted: "A ratfolk wielding a tailblade can make a tail attack, adding its Strength modifier to the tailblade's damage."
It does not say "add half your strength modifier" as is done with secondary natural attacks.
Because it doesn't have to. If you're not making a full attack, it's not considered a secondary attack.
When you are making a full attack, then it's a secondary attack, so it'll follow all the rules for secondary attacks, including BAB-5 and half strength bonus.
Also, note the rules for natural weapons: "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."
The rules listed under the item which is granting the attack are more specific than the universal monster rules.
Normally, if a creature only has one type of natural attack, it's primary. This applies to the tailblade. However, that's superseded by the text in the tailblade itself which tells you that it's secondary when used in a full-attack.
This is a special exception, because normal creatures don't work that way.
If a Centaur lost all his gear, he could still make hoof attacks. Hoof is a secondary natural attack. But because he has only one type of attack, but has multiple attacks per round, that attack is treated as a primary attack, regardless of its type. If he makes one hoof attack as a standard action, it's primary. If he makes two hoof attacks as a full-attack action, they're still primary.
Compare this to the tailblade, which is always going to be secondary when he full-attacks, even if he doesn't have any other attacks to make. A ratfolk under the effects of haste can either full-attack to make two attacks as secondary weapons, or just attack once as primary.
I'll grant that it's probably not intended to be that way.
|
|
Let's assume that this item has an odd exception.
You full attack, and it becomes secondary, no matter what.
Weird, but let's go with it.
Now, same PC, with a Tailblade, attacks with it, as a standard action:
Does it function as every other sole natural attack of a creature, and act as primary, with x1.5 strength to damage?
Does it act as primary, but, as another exception, only add x1 strength modifier to damage?
Does it remain secondary, no matter what, as another exception to rule?
How many exceptions does this item have?
|
|
Let's assume that this item has an odd exception.
You full attack, and it becomes secondary, no matter what.
Weird, but let's go with it.
Now, same PC, with a Tailblade, attacks with it, as a standard action:
Does it function as every other sole natural attack of a creature, and act as primary, with x1.5 strength to damage?
Does it act as primary, but, as another exception, only add x1 strength modifier to damage?
Does it remain secondary, no matter what, as another exception to rule?
How many exceptions does this item have?
There is a valid reason for the exception: you are attacking with your tail while attacking with your arms and you are a member of a race that normally don't attack with the tail (you need a crafted implement to be capable to do that, your naked tail don't do any damage if used alone and can't make any kind of attack).
I find that is is more of an exception calling it a natural attack. I would class it as a weapon attack that suffer from a -5 when used in conjunction with other attacks.
Probably it is classed as a natural attack to avoid penalizing builds that have natural attacks (ranger, alchemist, barbarian etc.) when they use a tailblade.
Compare with the kobold tail terror feat and attachments: the tail attack is a primary natural attack but when you use an attachment with it it become a weapon attack, on the other hand you need to spend a feat to get tail terror.
I think it would be simpler to have them work in the same way, but probably the two races have been developed by two different peoples]
|
|
I am being told I am wrong.
You're not. Get over it.. I'm sure you'll be wrong about something else soon enough ;)
(In case the wink wasn't enough for this medium.. this was meant to be humorous)
In all seriousness.. there's not much to this and all that's left is the old 'someone's wrong on the internet' to keep you up at night... get some sleep.
-James
It interesting to see how you two want to add a row of text that don't exist in the tail blade description.
To repeat it again:
"What part of "If used as part of a full attack action, attacks with a tailblade are considered secondary attacks." say anything about manufactured weapons?"
A full attack can be done with natural weapons only and is what all the creatures with multiple natural attacks use to deliver mroe than one attack.
