| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Has there yet been a conclusive Paizo/PFS ruling on whether one can put claw attacks on ones feet?
Has there yet been a conclusive Paizo/PFS ruling on whether one can put claw attacks on ones feet?
To my knowledge, nothing suggest that you can, apart from the rules specifically for eidolons.
Trawling through several threads on the issue concluded that there was nothing in the RAW to state that it is not permitted.
RAW can't be quoted by "nothing states that it is not permitted".
The various claw abilities has the assumption that claws go on hands. That is where claws is placed, apart from quadroped creatures, that use their front legs.
While some might not be satisfied by assumptions the game is build around/have existed upon, they actually do it all the time.
Nowhere is it stated that the base speed of creatures is a land speed. So a silly argument could be made, that dwarf can fly "because nothing states that they can't".
Hmm fair enough, though I'd love a ruling.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Granting upper body powers to the lower body seems like it might turn the game upside down.
(true story) I once had a player ask me if his PC could get a bite attack on his butt. Nothing in the rules specifically says that butts can't grow teeth and bite, but I didn't allow it anyhow.
RAW it seems to be legal, but I don't like it since I see no monster(biped) in the book that does this, and it just makes no sense.
And the question that prompted that thread: here.
The eidolon rules are full of exceptions from how the rules normally work. For example, Rake for an eidolon is different from Rake for most other creatures.
So basically (if I follow Cheapy's link), "Claw" attacks by RAW (as indicated by many, many monsters) are attacks on the "hands" of a creatures, and "Talon" attacks are those on the "feet" of the creature. Hence a bipedal character cannot grow claws on their feet because claws are grown on the hands. The attacks would have to be talons in order to be grown on the feet.
Is this what I should be reading from your post Cheapy?
Yep, that's correct. It's one of those unwritten rules, like how your mount needs to be a size category larger than you.
There aren't any abilities that I know of that give PCs talons. If there are, there are a dozen more methods of getting claws. Claws on the feet is an attempt to get around the number of hands you have, so that you can make more attacks in a round, and even just a bite and two claws is extremely powerful.
|
Yep, that's correct. It's one of those unwritten rules, like how your mount needs to be a size category larger than you.Just out of curiosity. Why does it matter if claws are on feet or hands? Isn't the mechanics the same either way?
Say you were a Tengu with the "claws" alternate racial trait (like myself!). People have tried to argue in the past that the claws were on their feet, thus they could do bite/claw/claw/weapon/weapon as a full-round attack, all at first level.
When I hear people try to argue it all I can imagine is a Velociraptor from Jurassic Park dual wielding shortswords. It makes me chuckle. And then I tell them, "no".
Clear ruling, wonderful, thank you very much.
And the question that prompted that thread: here.
The eidolon rules are full of exceptions from how the rules normally work. For example, Rake for an eidolon is different from Rake for most other creatures.
Ermm, that is not a conclusive ruling. That's an opinion by a Creative Director on his interpretation of RAI. He even admits above in the thread that he's not the rules guy. "Ask JJ" is not an official ruling thread. Hence why it's in the "Off Topic Discussions".
Dev responses don't all of a sudden become law or RAW unless it's an FAQ or printed Errata. All of them are very careful to avoid this in posts.
There is not RAW anywhere stating that claws must or only go on hands. There is no RAW anywhere stating that talons must or only go on feet.
Is it a safe common sense assumption? Sure. There's enough circumstantial evidence and precedent to back that up. Avian creatures have talons, bipeds and quadrupeds have claws. The sole exception is the Giant Eagle, which has claws (but has no hands, so it's ok).
But, then, why can't I have talons if I have an avian-based race like a Strix or Tengu? It would certainly make sense, especially if gained through Aspect of the Beast. Deinonychus from B2 has claws AND talons.
Kobold's descriptor in the ARG even states they have noticeable claws on their hands AND feet. Yes, it's flavor text, not a rule mechanic, but it's more RAW than the claws vs. talons (since it's actually written in the books). They're draconic in nature, and dragons can have claw/claw/bite/tail/wing/wing. Can I get some wing attacks please?
Why can't Catfolk and Kitsune have claws on hands and feet? They come from quadrupeds with rake attacks and claws on both.
The real issue lies with that clever player who tries to use all of this with a Human, for the extra feat, just to cheese it up that much further. Oh, I have adopted and toothy. See, I filed my teeth. And I have a level in Witch, so my hair is an attack. By the way I took Alchemist. Look what I grew? Two extra arms! Dipped in Barbarian today. yeah, gore attack! That puts me at 12 Natural attacks at level 5! See how clever I am? Yeah, you just ruined it for all of us. Thanks, munchkin man.
I think, after way too much researching this issue, I am going to rule at my table that yes, you can have claws on your feet. BUT:
1. You must be using a race that makes sense to have two sets of "claw attacks". I will rename that attack appropriately per racial origin. No, that does not qualify your human alchemist who grew 2 extra arms.
2. You must pay a double feat tax. First, Aspect of the Beast for tapping deeper within your race. I will rename Claws of the Beast appropriately per racial origin. Second, Multiattack if using 3 or more natural attacks is mandatory. If you gain your 3rd or more attack after first level, Multiattack must be your next feat taken.
I think that's a more than fair way to houserule the flavor and retain balance. 2 feats is a hefty price for 1d3 "other than hand" claw attacks when you can get 1x1d3 bite for half a feat (2 traits), or 2x1d3 claws for one feat on your hands normally.
Granting upper body powers to the lower body seems like it might turn the game upside down.
That would be the Australian version of Pathfinder.
Sorry Barry, I only care about what the intention is. That is, after all, the entire point of writing those words down that you are relying on: to get across the intention of the designer. And if you read the post, it's Daigle's post that I'm primarily referencing. He's the guy who developed an entire Bestiary and got hired at Paizo because of it.
It's fine for you to personally only care about RAI. In many cases, I agree with you. In fact, this is one of the few that I agree with the RAW because I see basic mechanical balance with the already printed word. But you CANNOT tout a post that's not FAQ or Errata as official word or RAW. Which is what I saw above.
What if I chose to create the Harpy race using the race builder, and put in a Talon natural attack? It would be as easy as modifying the Gargoyle a bit. Take out the gore, sub in talons, and BAM!
Let's use the litmus test of common sense and balance:
It's ok for a level 1 Harpy Monk to have 5 natural attacks, (claw/claw/bite/talon/talon) but it's not ok for a level 4 Harpy Ranger/Monk to have 3 natural attacks and close her claws to use 2 unarmed strikes (punch/punch/bite/talon/talon) or use 2 manufactured weapons in place of those natural attacks(dagger/dagger/bite/talon/talon)?
That, to me, makes no sense. By RAW mechanics, in both the Core Rulebook and the Universal Monster Rules, that would all be legal.
Mechanically, there's no difference between a claw and a talon. They are both natural attacks. What we can agree upon is that they are different only in name and location on the body. That being said, certain races other than Harpy could very well have claws AND talons, such as Strix, or Tengu. If you want precedent from a Bestiary, you need look no further than the B2's Deinonycus. Claws AND talons. But there are no existing rules for a talon attack. I see no reason people can't substitute in existing claw mechanics to emulate this (other than pedantic semantics) within reason for races that would make sense to have it. But I will agree that would be a houserule and not anything official unless they entirely separate natural and other attacks, or create a talon attack mechanic.
The bottom line is this: People want to build a natural attacker because Natural attacks are limited only by limb count. So, optimization demands they use all the limbs they have available to attack with.
Other than the extreme cheese of the Ranger/Alchemist/Witch/Barbarian who tries using claw/claw/claw/claw/bite/tail/hair/gore/tentacle/tentacle (which doesn't work for PC's anyways by RAW because bite, hair and gore use the same limb), what's wrong with getting the most out of what you have?
Since this thread is really old, I made a new one to get FAQ requests in. Rather than talking in circles, lets just hit the FAQ button in that thread and then get back to making some sweet-ass characters :)