I would like to start off that I work with cats and have had cats, and has a cat as pets and I am really perplexed with Paizo on this one.
Apparently claws don't do slashing and piercing damage types like they did in D&D 3.5, they do Slashing and Bludgeoning. Now I can see large cats doing all three damage types with a claw attack, but if I had to choose 2 I would stick with slashing and piercing.
This is one of a few really strange decisions about claws Paizo has made that I have over looked. Perhaps I have over looked something and this has been mentioned before.
What mechanical reason for this design decision is there?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
in order to make them able to kill skeletons, and bypass certain types of damage reduction.
There is no logical reason, it's a balance mechanical reason.
Bites do all three types of damage.
PS. This also makes it so that cats cant fish any more....
Also as a cat owner, I can assert that any "piercing" damage delivered by claws is negligible at best. Cat rests its paw on your arm, flexes its claws, the claws poke you a little bit, and that's it. Real damage is done by raking the claws across flesh (slashing) or just by straight up beating with them as one would with a fist (bludgeoning).
As noted that is a small cat, and thus small amounts of damage. Also, most cats don't actually want to hurt you. Now if you look at their toys, or have to deal with cats that are owned by a stranger... They will puncher then pull, a lot like a bunch of tiny curved rapiers.
|
And what big cat is going to be content with just piercing? That's why I say it's negligible; it's going to poke in only to rake across. A tusk or a spear, on the other hand, is primarily a thrusting and stabbing weapon. You poke in and that's pretty much the whole deal. Stab, withdraw, stab again. I don't see a problem with claws dealing slashing and bludgeoning but not piercing.
Have you ever watched a feline hunt? They don't slash their prey to death. They latch on to their prey with their claws and proceed to strangle them to death with their mouths.
Further more, have you ever seen any instance of Wolverine using his claws to bludgeon someone to death? I know I haven't.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Further more, have you ever seen any instance of Wolverine using his claws to bludgeon someone to death? I know I haven't.
I don't think I've ever seen an animal with claws like Wolverine.
Claw attacks aren't just the pointy nails at the ends of digits doing damage. They're the full hand or limb striking the foe (bludgeoning) and then following through in a raking motion (slashing).
|
And what big cat is going to be content with just piercing? That's why I say it's negligible; it's going to poke in only to rake across. A tusk or a spear, on the other hand, is primarily a thrusting and stabbing weapon. You poke in and that's pretty much the whole deal. Stab, withdraw, stab again. I don't see a problem with claws dealing slashing and bludgeoning but not piercing.Have you ever watched a feline hunt? They don't slash their prey to death. They latch on to their prey with their claws and proceed to strangle them to death with their mouths.
Further more, have you ever seen any instance of Wolverine using his claws to bludgeon someone to death? I know I haven't.
Wolverine's fighting style in anything I've seen him in is "use claws to destroy enemy's gun, then tackle the enemy to the ground". Unless he's using a samurai sword.
As for the original question, remember-- it's not just stats for the claws, it's stats for the whole paw.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ehhm.. who cares?
PS. I'm being a jerk now, so please delete this post.
Ehhm.. who cares?
PS. I'm being a jerk now, so please delete this post.
You can delete it yourself you know. ;)
You can delete it yourself you know. ;)Ehhm.. who cares?
PS. I'm being a jerk now, so please delete this post.
Never! That wouldn't be a jerk move.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with the OP.
Not much else to say. It doesn't make sense.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Allow me to speak as someone who has been on the receiving end of a Mountain Lions claw;
The injuries I got from that were two cuts, and a broken leg.
That thing hit me hard enough to break my leg. So, with that unique perspective in mind, I tend to agree with Paizo on this one.
And Mountain Lion's don't fish so they don't mind the loss of Piercing?
And Mountain Lion's don't fish so they don't mind the loss of Piercing?
I've seen video of various cats (and bears) fishing. I've never seen them doing piercing damage. I've seen them doing a grab special attack followed with either a pull-adjacent-grapple or reposition-to-dry-land. Now the latter doesn't work under PF rules, but the no-reposition-into-danger rule is undoubtedly one of balance not realism.
You can't impale someone with a cat.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can't impale someone with a cat.
Challenge accepted.
And Mountain Lion's don't fish so they don't mind the loss of Piercing?
The brings up an important point- does it matter?
As far as I am aware, that damage type is more of a penalty than anything (since very few things have DR/piercing, at least without slashign in there too). It gets applied to things that might be 'too good', like bows for archery, or the only simple reach weapon. It is a weird grandfathered balance thing from D&D editions.
This isn't like a longsword, where there is a distinct image problem with it lacking piercing. Claws would still generally be doing the same motions.
I see no reason why they couldn't fish with these claws just because their not mechanically doing piercing damage.
When you think about it, they're actually using the claws to grapple the fish.
Come to think of it, do they receive any bonus for using their claws in a grapple/pin? I think they should, but that's off-topic: if you need the piercing damage for certain contexts that you feel it's necessary, why not just request a house-rule or try to explain it as logically as you can for why it has to work the way you want it to?
Even a tiger or something slashes accross the flesh.It only peirces down an inch or two unless it opens you all the way up, as opposed to an arrow a rapier or a spiear which goes all the way through you.
|
Changelings, are the only creature so far that I have seen, that deal Slashing/Piercing with Claws.
There could be more.
I see nothing in the race entry or bestiary entry for changelings that alter the claw damage type. They both simply grant claw natural attacks, which default to the universal rules.
|
in order to make them able to kill skeletons, and bypass certain types of damage reduction.
There is no logical reason, it's a balance mechanical reason.
Bites do all three types of damage.
PS. This also makes it so that cats cant fish any more....
Care to explain why Pathfinder cats can't "fish". I don't see a rule preventing it.
|
Care to explain why Pathfinder cats can't "fish". I don't see a rule preventing it.in order to make them able to kill skeletons, and bypass certain types of damage reduction.
There is no logical reason, it's a balance mechanical reason.
Bites do all three types of damage.
PS. This also makes it so that cats cant fish any more....
Underwater combat takes penalties for using non piercing weapons. Making it harder for cats to fish.
Except they also have bite attacks, that do b/p/s so they should be fine
I've seen cats hunt rodents. They do one of two things: grab and bite, or bludgeon the thing. Makes sense to me.
That shows what damage type each natural attack is, how much it does by size, and whether or not it's a primary or secondary attack.
Note that several creatures override the default damage amount without listing a feat or ability that accounts for the override. The types are pretty much always the default, though.
Keep in mind that there are bigger creatures than cats that have claws. Getting slashed by a grizzly bear is like getting punched with a handful of steak knives.