Hi, I've read some other posts about natural attacks and I'm still confused.
If a creature has bite and 2 claws, can it use the full attack option to make 3 attacks in a round? Since bite and claw are both primary attacks, does the creature get it's full attack bonus on each of 3 attacks? For example, a ghoul (CR 1) gets 3 attacks a round at +3/+3/+3 to hit?
Correct, if you full attack you get all your natural attacks, and primary attacks take no penalty.
My group's druid has an ape animal companion. It seems wrong that a level 1 character would effectively have 4 attacks (1 for the druid). The ape would get 3 attacks at +2/+2/+2?
Non of those attacks do anywhere near as much damage or have as good to hit as a 2handed fighter with a high strength power attacking a greatsword.
The companion has a +2/+2/+2 for 1d4+1, and the druid has like a +1 or 2 for 1d6+1or 2 depending on stats and weapon of choice.
The power attacking fighter with an 18 str and weapon focus - has +4 2d6+9
Druids are good for sure, but its not 'wrong' that they get multiple attacks. Particularly when things start having DR
At level 4, the ape becomes large as well. 3 attacks at +8/+8/+8 at level 4? Does that mean that all of its attacks have reach as well (bite too?)
Yes
At level 9 the ape gets multiattack but how does that work?
Multiattack: An animal companion gains Multiattack as
a bonus feat if it has three or more natural attacks and does
not already have that feat. If it does not have the requisite
three or more natural attacks, the animal companion
instead gains a second attack with one of its natural
weapons, albeit at a –5 penalty.Multiattack (Combat)
This creature is particularly skilled at making attacks
with its natural weapons.
Prerequisite: Three or more natural attacks.
Benefit: The creature’s secondary attacks with natural
weapons take only a –2 penalty.
Normal: Without this feat, the creature’s secondary
attacks with natural weapons take a –5 penalty.So does the ape get 4 attacks at +12/+12/+12/+7? That can't be right. A level 9 fighter only gets 2 attacks. My guess is that you can only make one primary attack even if you make a full attack. Especially if you consider that there's a druid attached to this beatstick too. Please help!
Multi attack grants no benefit to the ape unless it is somehow granted some secondary attacks, its still just the 3 attacks.
|
Hi, I've read some other posts about natural attacks and I'm still confused.
If a creature has bite and 2 claws, can it use the full attack option to make 3 attacks in a round? Since bite and claw are both primary attacks, does the creature get it's full attack bonus on each of 3 attacks? For example, a ghoul (CR 1) gets 3 attacks a round at +3/+3/+3 to hit?
Correct, if you full attack you get all your natural attacks, and primary attacks take no penalty.
My group's druid has an ape animal companion. It seems wrong that a level 1 character would effectively have 4 attacks (1 for the druid). The ape would get 3 attacks at +2/+2/+2?
Non of those attacks do anywhere near as much damage or have as good to hit as a 2handed fighter with a high strength power attacking a greatsword.
The companion has a +2/+2/+2 for 1d4+1, and the druid has like a +1 or 2 for 1d6+1or 2 depending on stats and weapon of choice.
The power attacking fighter with an 18 str and weapon focus - has +4 2d6+9
Druids are good for sure, but its not 'wrong' that they get multiple attacks. Particularly when things start having DR
At level 4, the ape becomes large as well. 3 attacks at +8/+8/+8 at level 4? Does that mean that all of its attacks have reach as well (bite too?)
Yes
...At level 9 the ape gets multiattack but how does that work?
Multiattack: An animal companion gains Multiattack as
a bonus feat if it has three or more natural attacks and does
not already have that feat. If it does not have the requisite
three or more natural attacks, the animal companion
instead gains a second attack with one of its natural
weapons, albeit at a –5 penalty.Multiattack (Combat)
This creature is particularly skilled at making attacks
with its natural weapons.
Prerequisite: Three or more natural attacks.
Benefit: The creature’s secondary attacks with natural
weapons take only a –2 penalty.
Normal: Without this feat, the
You were correct until you came to the multi-attack feat. Unfortunately the latest FAQ update on this issue has declared that the ape would get an additional attack at a -5 to hit. They can choose any of their existing natural weapons to take this attack with.
Huh, can you link to the faq entry? I cant find it.
|
I'm not seeing the FAQ about the multiattack issue. What I can see is that animal companions (and eidolons for that matter) get an ability called multiattack that is different from (but ultimately could be the same as) the feat.
It states that when a monster gets that special ability if it has three or more natural attacks it will gain the Multiattack feat as a bonus feat. If it does not have the three requisite natural attacks it gets a second attack with it's primary natural weapon at a -5 penalty.
In this case the ape has three natural attacks (2 claws and 1 bite) so he would gain the Multiattack feat as a bonus feat. This could be cleared up if they changed the wording of the Multiattack ability to say that if the monster had three attacks with at least one being a secondary attack then he would get the feat else he would get the extra attack.
EDIT:
So after posting I saw the post with the link to the FAQ. Good to know they did clear that up.
|
Huh, can you link to the faq entry? I cant find it.Sure, here's the main post in the faq entry that explicitly lays it out.
It is important to note that this is not a FAQ or errata and explicitly goes against the rules as presented out in the core rule book. It is an opinion about what SKR believes is "fair".
While I often listen to his clarifications and rulings, in this situation it is best that GM ignore it until a true FAQ or errata is published about it.
|
|
Huh, can you link to the faq entry? I cant find it.Sure, here's the main post in the faq entry that explicitly lays it out.
It is important to note that this is not a FAQ or errata and explicitly goes against the rules as presented out in the core rule book. It is an opinion about what SKR believes is "fair".
While I often listen to his clarifications and rulings, in this situation it is best that GM ignore it until a true FAQ or errata is published about it.
No, this IS an actual blog update and SKR actually put on his developer hat to make this post. If you follow the link you will see that this is a BLOG update with the full Developer tag attached to it making it as official as it can be.
Until they issue another statement overruling this one, this Blog update is an official ruling.When SKR makes a statement in his "ask skr anything" thread that is to be considered a house rule with no bearing. Anything put in a Blog update is official and has the full weight of the game designers behind it. (As we learned from the Flurry of Blows Blog update mess a few months ago).
.
Except in the very same thread (on page 2), SKR answers that "I'm still investigating your question" when asked if that is going to be changed in actual rules, as they currently make no mention of it (even following CRB-errata issued several months after the blog post).
|
|
Except in the very same thread (on page 2), SKR answers that "I'm still investigating your question" when asked if that is going to be changed in actual rules, as they currently make no mention of it (even following CRB-errata issued several months after the blog post).
His post was about whether it is going to be added to the next printing of the Bestiary, has nothing to do with the ruling itself.
I personally despise this ruling but it is, unfortunately, binding per the official rules regarding blog posts.
|
|
No, this IS an actual blog update and SKR actually put on his developer hat to make this post. If you follow the link you will see that this is a BLOG update with the full Developer tag attached to it making it as official as it can be.
Until they issue another statement overruling this one, this Blog update is an official ruling.When SKR makes a statement in his "ask skr anything" thread that is to be considered a house rule with no bearing. Anything put in a Blog update is official and has the full weight of the game designers behind it. (As we learned from the Flurry of Blows Blog update mess a few months ago).
The blog update says nothing about this issue. The blog update is a reminder that you can switch out animal companions for domains in the NPC codex.
The posts below are just that, posts. Nothing he says implies that he is changing the rules and when he is asked about he says it is being investigated.
Just like the conflicting rulings that appeared in the Flurry of blows debacle it is best to wait until they make an official ruling, using one of the methods of official ruling that they have set up, before implementing it.
If almost noone can be aware of a ruling without having read a particular post at the time it was made (whether that's a blog post or a forum post), or has that post linked to them by someone who has (and remembers it), then it won't work as intended. FAQs and errata can be easily found by following links in appropriate sections, while blog posts can not.
Besides, since this ruling was not made in a blog post, but in a regular forum reply to a blog post (which wasn't about rules at all, and the ruling was only issued because there was confusion about the statblocks on the previewed page), this is no more official than any other forum post made by a developer. This has to be, at the very least, added to the FAQ in order to be properly official.
Edit: And more importantly, so that people can apply this themselves without having to know about an obscure forum post.
|
|
No, this IS an actual blog update and SKR actually put on his developer hat to make this post. If you follow the link you will see that this is a BLOG update with the full Developer tag attached to it making it as official as it can be.
Until they issue another statement overruling this one, this Blog update is an official ruling.When SKR makes a statement in his "ask skr anything" thread that is to be considered a house rule with no bearing. Anything put in a Blog update is official and has the full weight of the game designers behind it. (As we learned from the Flurry of Blows Blog update mess a few months ago).
The blog update says nothing about this issue. The blog update is a reminder that you can switch out animal companions for domains in the NPC codex.
The posts below are just that, posts. Nothing he says implies that he is changing the rules and when he is asked about he says it is being investigated.
Just like the conflicting rulings that appeared in the Flurry of blows debacle it is best to wait until they make an official ruling, using one of the methods of official ruling that they have set up, before implementing it.
You didn't actually look at the actual blog post did you?
In the image itself (pulled from the actual printing of the book) it shows this ruling in effect (small cat is displaying the iterative attack on it's bite). When this was brought up they posted an official response stating that was intended and what rule was responsible for it.This is as clear cut as it gets: Printed book, Blog post and developer statement all saying the same thing. At this point there should be no question that this is how the rule works, anything more is willful disbelief.
Edit: @ARE, if you do not wish to accept this ruling that is perfectly fine, in my home game I won't be. However for official games (ie. PFS) this is how it works now and that system has re-affirmed blog posts as specifically a valid source for new rulings and clarifications.
Mathwei ap Niall is right, this is not even a matter of a Blog or FAQ issue. The book (NPC Codex) has a clear example of a multiattack applying to an AC with three primary attacks. The only question from that point is that is that example in error or not. SKR has indicated it is not. End of story.
The main problem is that this does warrant a FAQ or wording change in the original ability since it does not indicate what the Paizo staff think it does. Currently, the NPC Codex amounts to a stealth FAQ (I hate those).
- Gauss
Edit: @ARE, if you do not wish to accept this ruling that is perfectly fine, in my home game I won't be. However for official games (ie. PFS) this is how it works now and that system has re-affirmed blog posts as specifically a valid source for new rulings and clarifications.
Personal acceptance of the ruling is not my concern.
My point is this:
If a player or GM wants to make an animal companion, and they are not already aware of this issue, there is no way they would give that animal companion an additional attack as per the ruling, since neither actual rules nor any of the easily available ruling sources (FAQs and errata) say a word about it.
In fact, unless that player or GM uses the NPC Codex and thinks the animal companion statblocks within look odd, there's no reason for them to even try to find the post in question.
That's the reason the ruling needs to be added to FAQ or errata, so that normal players/GMs can actually find it and use it.
It has nothing to do with how I personally feel about the ruling.
|
|
While I respect the opinion that this is an official ruling, its not. They have two places for official rulings: FAQ and Errata.
The problem is that the rules are set. This is not a situation on an unclear rule being clarified but a clear and cut rule being ignored so things are "fair" (to quote SKR). The final thing SKR said was that he would investigate changing the rule but that rule has not yet been changed.
As to if a PFS Gm has to allow it: "You may not simply ignore rules clarifications made by the campaign leadership, including the campaign coordinator and campaign developer..." SKR is neither the Campaign Coordinator or the Campaign Developer as far as I know. If I am wrong on that though let me know so that I can adjust which rulings I need to follow.
Guys, again, this is not an official ruling by SKR. It is a clarification that, regarding this rule, the printing of the NPC Codex is not in error.
Unfortunately, that printing turns what many of us (myself included) on it's head and amounts to a stealth change to what many of us understood to be the rule. That being, that animal companions with 3 primary attacks gain nothing from the multiattack AC ability.
- Gauss