| Scott Wilhelm |
I doubt there is one. A monster is usually fine with having either a claw attack or a slam attack on its limb, so why should the writers bother? It just means a longer stat block and more reading effort for the GM. Ok, a claw can also be used as slashing weapon, opposed to a slam, but if a writer wants this versatility, they can simply replace a slam by a claw.
Also, there is the matter that Claws can do either Slashing or Blunt Damage. And absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That applies to both of us. You haven't produced a monster that has Claws or Slam. I haven't produced a monster with Claws and Slam.
Some slam attacks are bound to limbs, the others aren't - that's the conclusion for me. The marilith is a prime example for the first group with its 6 arms and 6 slams.
It sure does look like Marilith Demon Slam Attacks are linked to their 6 arms. So, what do we think decides whether a Slam Attack is linked to particular monsters' particular limbs or else not? The intent of the monster's author? In the case I brought up--The Druid Barbarian with Beast Totem, the Claws and Bite Rage Powers that Wildshapes into a Gorilla--that would mean the Character's Player who is the author, wouldn't it?
Meanwhile, it is typically the case that whenever you get a new Natural Attack, you get to add it to your Full Attack. On the other hand, I wouldn't feel comfortable saying that an Alchemist/Witch that had Feral Mutagen for Claws and a Bite and also had the Nails Hex should be able to make 2 Claw and 2 Nail Attacks from the same set of hands.