Do multiple natural attacks take a full-round action?

[ZenFox42]

I don't see any explicit mention in the SRD that a creature with multiple natural attacks has to take a full round action to use them all (and hence is limited to only a 5-foot step when using them all).

The only thing I found that says anything in conjunction with the two is : "Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action"

And in the definition of a full-round attack : "If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason..." - no mention of natural attacks at all (I can't imagine that a natural attack would be a "special reason").

Can anyone find anything in the SRD that says one way or the other?

Thanks!

P.S. - I'm not confused about anything regarding *how* natural attacks work (attack and damage bonuses for single vs. multiple attacks, single vs. multiple attack types, etc.), just whether or not you must take a full round action to use them all.

[Mojorat]

Basically with a few exceptions like cleave, aytime you make more than one attack in a ro7nd its always a full attack action.

[blackbloodtroll]

When you attack as a Standard Action, it is always one attack, regardless of whether it is a manufactured weapon, or natural weapon.

To get more, you need to use the Full Attack Action.

There are some feats, and abilities that make exceptions, but those are rare.

[Barry Armstrong]

Yes, you must take a full attack action to use multiple attacks of any kind. That's why the rules don't bother to specify between natural, manufactured, and unarmed in this case.

Reference:

PRD, Core Rulebook, Combat Chapter, Multiple Attacks wrote:

A character who can make more than one attack per round must use the full-attack action (see Full-Round Actions) in order to get more than one attack.

That is directly from the CRB, and coincidentally directly under the paragraph explaining natural attacks.

[HangarFlying]

OP: Natural weapons would fall under the "or for some special reason" clause that you quoted.

[Barry Armstrong]

HangarFlying wrote:

OP: Natural weapons would fall under the "or for some special reason" clause that you quoted.

Yep, you can also use this as your reference justification if you wish. Because natural attacks and manufactured/unarmed use different attack mechanics, it would indeed fall under the "or for some special reason" clause.

However, see my first post for the direct reference which is not at all unclear. :D

[HangarFlying]

Barry Armstrong wrote:

HangarFlying wrote:

OP: Natural weapons would fall under the "or for some special reason" clause that you quoted.

Yep, you can also use this as your reference justification if you wish. Because natural attacks and manufactured/unarmed use different attack mechanics, it would indeed fall under the "or for some special reason" clause.

However, see my first post for the direct reference which is not at all unclear. :D

Woot woot! I didn't see your post when I replied, but it's good we're covered from all angles! :-D