| 36 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey all!
A few months ago (ok, more like almost a year ago), there was a question asked about tentacles. Like anything involving tentacles, things soon took a turn for the weird.
Weird in this case meaning trying to use unarmed strike and natural attacks together. (The standards for weird have dropped lately.)
The question then became: How do natural attacks an unarmed attacks interact for purposes of number of attacks per round?
We see Sean here trying to explain how this works.
And yes, the rules say that if you're using a manufactured weapon or unarmed strikes, you CAN use them in conjunction with natural attacks, "so long as a different limb is used for each attack."
The intent of that was to allow you wield a 1H weapon and make a secondary claw attack with your other hand, or to let you wield a 1H weapon and make a secondary bite attack with your mouth, or to let you wield a 2H weapon and make a secondary bite attack with your mouth.
The intent was to prevent you from making a full attack sequence with your natural attacks and a bunch of unarmed strikes by specifically defining your undefined unarmed strikes as conveniently different limbs than your natural attacks. Which is exactly what you're trying to do.
(Emphasis his)
There are more posts in there going over it, but that's the main one.
I think this would be a fine candidate for a new FAQ entry, as it seems to rely on an understanding most of us don't have, similar to the THF / TWF issue that just came up.
So, most wonderful of people, please hit the FAQ button here so that perhaps we can finally lay this one to rest.
Cheers!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I clicked FAQ for you.
My off the cuff response would be that you can unarmed strike and use natural weapons, but that's just a guess.
Thanks!
|
So, say you had a Tengu Monk, as we were just talking about in another thread. As I understand it, you could use two-weapon fighting with unarmed strikes, and add your natural weapons into the mix, for a strike/strike/claw/claw/bite at -2/-2/-5/-5/-5. Consider the strikes to be kicks or something.
If it doesn't work that way, how does it?
I can see Sean's point to a degree while I agree that biting or goring would work with IUS I can see the issue of declaring kicks just to also get claws so you can boost up your DPR for the round. Honestly for a future edition making unarmed a natural weapon thing or at least setting some hard rules on interactions might be nice.
Bbt one of the issues with stuff like this is it makes the monk even less the master of weaponless combat.
Also FAQ'd
| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
FAQ'd, as I'm the one re-reading all the old posts. I really think this issue needs clarification, since many are confused and I'll refrain from further thread necro to concentrate on this one.
After much research, I believe the question to be FAQ'd is:
When you use natural attacks in conjunction with unarmed attacks in a full-attack action, do you receive all available natural attacks AND all available primary/offhand (iterative) attacks, so long as all attacks use a different limb?
For instance, could a level 1 Tengu Monk with beak/claw/claw natural attacks also use two kicks in the same full attack action for an attack pattern of claw/claw/beak/kick/kick?
Assumptions:
- This is not a flurry, but a normal full-attack action
- Two-Weapon Fighting feat choice at level 1
- Each attack uses a different limb per combat rules (L hand, R hand, L foot, R foot, head)
- Unarmed attacks are made at full BAB -2/-7 (TWF) + STR (Monk Unarmed Strike)
- Natural attacks become secondary, made at full BAB -5 and half STR per combat rules
You are all beautiful people.
This was the one I was worried wouldn't get many FAQs.
A monk's unarmed attacks have always been regarded as a 'martial process of landing a blow utilizing any/all parts of the body to land the blow. In effect a character is trying his utmost with all weapon points on the body. It occurs to me that this "natural" vs. "unarmed strike" division under the vaguest of justifications is to just get a ridiculous amount of attacks to outclass everyone else at the table.
No.
No unarmed strike focused PC ever outclasses the ones using actual weapons.
Especially Two handed weapons and Archery.
Agreeded but being able to stack up 3 more attacks each round with the right bonuses would close up the gap somewhat for every one except the monk.
But it's harder. You can't make sword attacks with your feet or knees like you can unarmed attacks. And your really pushing into lollipop guild territory if you start arguing foot claws like we have seen before.
I have to agree with BBT here. This would not, in any way, hurt combat balance at the table. Regardless of the actual attack count, this character is still going to be behind the power curve, and to make up the slack he has to spend some serious feats and cash just to get up to par. As a matter of fact, it would help out the monk the most, a melee class that actually needs some blessings from the combat rules gods.
At the most, this allows you to retain the use of your gods-given unarmed attacks for being a level 1 <everything> and still use your natural attacks.
The honest issue to me is that monks now are even more reliant on using a weapon to keep up since a fighter with the right race or other method of getting the attacks is now the master of fighting without weapons.
Besides there is also some precedent set on the language of flurry that lends weight to the thought of its a no go. If the master of unarmed combat can't figure out how to add in bites and claws to raise his attack routine above a set number of attacks then why can others do it so easily?
Hell man fighter??? A tengu rogue could pull this off and probably be better than a monk. And even the most inept combat class the commoner could figure out how to kick twice and then claw claw bite. But a monk needs a feat just to claw in a flurry really?
It could be Orc commoners with bite attacks for all I care they can still make something happen that a trained martial artist can't.
I'm not gonna derail cheapy's thread playing the yes no game. Bbt I would love to see a monk overhaul, but until a game rewrite it ain't happening so right now by your theory the monk just has to suck because we can't make everyone else stop being Kung-fu animals with as many natural attacks as they can find a way to fit on one person.
That is a bad way to go about things.
I have to agree 100% with BBT on this issue. Allowing monks unarmed strikes and natural attacks has never harmed the balance at any table I sat at. We just chuckle at the thought of the monk twisting and turning in all these different cinematic forms in order to hit with all their attacks.
|
|
Actually, now that I think about it, rewriting unarmed strikes as another form of natural attack wouldn't work, either.
Then the Tengu Monk example would be the same strike/strike/claw/claw/bite, but all at +0 to hit, since they'd all be primary attacks.
I think this whole mess would've been easier to resolve if "fist" was added to the list of light weapons, and was useable by any humanoid race, and improved unarmed strike was only something the Monk could receive, as a class feature. Say, at level 2, to discourage multiclassing for that purpose.
Of course, that would require Pathfinder 2.0, as I think things are too imbedded at this point to be changed easily.
Well another possibility would be to branch out and have charters able to learn styles that open up usable body parts. No training would be fist only but other styles could allow you to not only learn to use other parts but possibly change your damage dice or provide other bonuses based on the style.
Not if your a warforged boxer out to prove something.
What about the other idea? Making "fist" a light weapon, for all humanoid races?
I think that's the robot style he is talking about.
Heck by making up non real world styles one could even create styles that not only incorporate natural weapons but even rely on them.
I was mostly talking as a thought towards either an optional rule system or next edition.
Exactly.What about the other idea? Making "fist" a light weapon, for all humanoid races?I think that's the robot style he is talking about.
Umm, a fist IS a light weapon. Unarmed attacks, and natural attacks for that matter, are both light weapons per RAW.
Besides there is also some precedent set on the language of flurry that lends weight to the thought of its a no go. If the master of unarmed combat can't figure out how to add in bites and claws to raise his attack routine above a set number of attacks then why can others do it so easily?
That's a great stretch. Besides, the addition of Feral Combat Training solved that issue. A monk can definitely figure out how to add in bites and claws to raise his attack routine. It's the rulebook that stops him. We're trying to clarify that rulebook.
What nefreet means is that normal humanoids would only have fist to attack with no knees or headbutts or kicks. Meaning that claws would be barred from mixing as your using the same limb.
That would pretty much mean you should just rip out the entire Class section for Monks, then.
The rules as written bar you from clawing and elbowing with the same limb already, or headbutting and biting, just like they bar you from clawing and swording with the same limb.
As he said monks would get a class feature that would let them Kung-fu it up. The issue isn't same limbness it's clawing with a hand then kicking simply because my foot isn't a limb using a nat weapon.
As he said monks would get a class feature that would let them Kung-fu it up. The issue isn't same limbness it's clawing with a hand then kicking simply because my foot isn't a limb using a nat weapon.
Which is completely legal by RAW for monks already, who can specify their unarmed strikes. So, how is that cheesy?
Except that monks, at least flurrying ones, get left out. When you flurry you are barred from any natural attacks unless you have Feral combat training. And then you replace a flurry attack with the natural weapon not gain it in addition to flurry. So a monk the guy trained for unarmed fighting can't do it.
Notice I never said cheese.
It sure seems that way in most cases. I don't see how claw/claw/bite/kick/kick is cheesy, either, honestly, if you're a race that happens to have natural weapons. Trust me, the build makes up for the power curve later in levels when it would truly matter most.
The limburger factor comes in when you start stacking all of this with prehensile hair, gore attacks, tentacles, wanting iterative attacks because of your high BAB, etc...
I honestly think the best solution for this is to treat this under natural attack rules, when you have both unarmed strikes and natural attacks.
That way, you couldn't whine for your iteratives. You'd be limited to one attack, per limb, period. Yes, you can still get claw/claw/bite/tail/kick/kick with a kobold. Or perhaps claw/claw/bite/tail/kick/kick/wing/wing with an Aasimar (can they even get a tail attack?) But your 8 puny attacks are all still subject to DR. Strength penalties. Feat taxes. Magical item reliance. Table variance. Player annoyance. The list keeps growing.
Compare that to a parallel build on a fighter. Add up the DPR numbers. I bet, at best, they'd be equivalent.
I still wish they had not ruled the ability to two weapon fight with unarmed strike/unarmed strike, valid.
I like the idea of the unarmed strike as a single weapon.
This would still give the Monk the advantage, and Unarmed Strikes with Natural Weapons would be a non-issue.
Even with unarmed strikes as a single weapon, you'd still be able to get claw/claw/bite/unarmed per RAW. And you could still exploit the claw/claw/bite/tail/tentacle/tentacle/unarmed build. So the cheese factor is still there. You simply have one less attack.
Perhaps we could say unarmed strikes are treated as natural attacks, one per limb max, and limit the number of natural attacks for a PC to <X>, where X is a scaling limit for a typical melee class of that level range?
what's the typical attacks per round of a two-weapon fighter/ranger/paladin? How about if they dual wield?
A boot blade is not unarmed, but I would counter with "What's wrong with claw/claw/bite/kick/kick??" Per RAW, it's the exact same mechanic as claw/claw/bite/unarmed/unarmed and claw/claw/bite/boot blade/boot blade.
You're just changing the name to suit your fancy. I argue strictly from a monk's perspective, as they'd be the only one that would be specifying their kicks anyways.