If a creature has only one natural attack, it is always made using the creature’s full base attack bonus and adds 1-1/2 times the creature’s Strength bonus on damage rolls.
Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action (although often a creature must forgo one natural attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a claw, tentacle, or slam). Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their available natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack’s original type.
So basically, let's say we have a creature with hands but no claws, a bite attack, and a sword. When he attacks, is the bite at his full BAB or is it at -5, as a normal secondary attack? The first quote doesn't use the word attacks (even though much of the rest of the section substitutes the word attacks for natural attacks), it specifically says "only one natural attack." As in, it is unconcerned with manufactured weapons and attacks. It's also important to note that this "always" rule doesn't distinguish between secondary and primary natural attacks (but I wonder if some of that is 3.5>PF error). Seeing that, it looks to me as if it must be at full BAB. And presumably, it would also add 1-1/2 Strength as well, but you could try to parse the phrasing and say it defaults to secondary damage. The attack bonus however seems to be pretty locked in.
What do you think?
DISCLAIMER: This is merely an interesting question. I am not a munchkin. I do not intend to do this. Please refrain from shooting the messenger.
Any time you use a natural attack with a manufactured weapon it becomes a secondary attack.
Any time you use a natural attack with a manufactured weapon it becomes a secondary attack.
This.
It can be a bit wonky.. and you need to look in a few places to piece it all together sometimes.. but this is how the game operates.
The benefit, of course, is still there... the natural attack is pure bonus. When you use a 2-hander and a bite, the bite is just an extra attack. You still get all of your regular iteratives.
You can also throw a few oddities in the mix... you can, for example, get abilities that give you a gore, 2 claws and a bite... and they are all listed as primary attacks on their own... but according to the natural weapon rules, you can't have three primaries. You can only have certain combinations and are generally limited to two. So there are some odd things.
You can have more than two primary natural attacks. Just look at the Gargoyle. It has 4.
Ah, to clarify.
I meant that you can't generally have more than two primary attack types. But as I am looking for that particular rule.. I can't seem to find it anywhere.
I was under the impression that certain combos (like claws and bite) could both be primary for some set reason... but it seems that certain types are just secondary to begin with (tentacles, wings, hooves, pincers, tails) unless they are the only type of attack that you have.
So... scratch part of my last comment off. That was my mistake. I am really wondering where in the world I got this idea from....
Any time you use a natural attack with a manufactured weapon it becomes a secondary attack.
Correct, but as I already stated, that doesn't seem to be relevant. Since the ability referencing a single natural attack makes no distinction between primary and secondary, and it says "always".
It doesn't matter. As soon as any natural weapon is used with a manufactured it becomes a secondary attack. Its origonal designation is irellivant. PF is about general rules and specific exceptions.
General rule is that all natural attacks are labeled primary or secondary.
Specific exception is that if a natural attack is your only attack it does 1.5x damage.
Then the natur attacks with manufactured weapon rule ober rides all of that.
Any time you use a natural attack with a manufactured weapon it becomes a secondary attack.Correct, but as I already stated, that doesn't seem to be relevant. Since the ability referencing a single natural attack makes no distinction between primary and secondary, and it says "always".
But you are forgetting the bolded bit of the other rule you are finding in conflict: "all" natural attacks become secondary "regardless of type" (as in regardless of whether they are primary or secondary to begin with).
Looking at the universal monster rules, the fact that the "everything becomes secondary when manufactured weapons are used" rule comes after the "only one type of of natural weapon rule" seems to give the "manufactured mixing" rule precedent. As in it alters the normal rules that include the "only one attack" rule.
I am also basing this upon the principle that a specific rule usually supersedes the general rule. The "only one attack" rule is in the same paragraph that introduces the concept of natural attacks, meaning it is the general rule that is part of the basis for all natural attacks. On the other hand, the "manufactured mixing" rule comes in later, and it is for the specific (and somewhat rare) situation where a creature can take both natural and manufactured attacks in the same full attack.
If nothing else, you could always simply look at the bestiary for precedents of how Paizo officially handles this. Now, admittedly, searching for creatures with both a bite (easiest natural weapon to have and mix with a weapon) and a weapon is troublesome, so my sample size bit rather small. But just the preliminary search gave me the Abyss Gygas and Adlet (this is the easier one to deal with conceptually, since it is a wolf person). The Gygas has [mwk adamantine warhammer +25/+20/+15 (4d6+19/19-20/x3), bite +19 (2d8+6 plus wrenching spasms)] while the Adlet has [+1 spear +17/+12/+7 (1d8+7/×3), bite +10 (1d6+2 plus 1d6 cold)]. As this shows, the bonuses to attack and damage rolls show the secondary natural attack penalties of -5 and 1/2 strength.
I meant that you can't generally have more than two primary attack types. But as I am looking for that particular rule.. I can't seem to find it anywhere.
I was under the impression that certain combos (like claws and bite) could both be primary for some set reason... but it seems that certain types are just secondary to begin with (tentacles, wings, hooves, pincers, tails) unless they are the only type of attack that you have.
Yeah you are mistaken there. Each type is either primary or secondary based on a table in the natural attack rules; they don't change designation just because you have more natural attacks. That said there are a few exceptions (kinda):
1. If you only have one natural attack it is automatically primary and deals 1.5 str damage.
2. There seemed to be a clarification around here somewhere that you can only have one natural attack per limb, so if you only had two arms and a slam and two claws, you couldn't make both claws and the slam simultaneously iirc.
The one attack per limb thing in terms of all natural attacks is not defines anywhere. Its mainly a natural attack + manufactured weapons rule. However the vast majority of monsters have one natural weapon per limb. There's a few exceptions with a bite and gore.
It doesn't matter. As soon as any natural weapon is used with a manufactured it becomes a secondary attack. Its origonal designation is irellivant. PF is about general rules and specific exceptions.
General rule is that all natural attacks are labeled primary or secondary.
Specific exception is that if a natural attack is your only attack it does 1.5x damage.
Then the natur attacks with manufactured weapon rule ober rides all of that.
I'm not disagreeing with that part. I just don't see how it's relevant.
The bite becomes a secondary attack... and is still your only natural attack. A creature with only a tail slap would still use full BAB and deal 1.5 STR damage.
I agree that this is (more than likely) the intent, but I don't know if the rules bear that out.
If nothing else, you could always simply look at the bestiary for precedents of how Paizo officially handles this. Now, admittedly, searching for creatures with both a bite (easiest natural weapon to have and mix with a weapon) and a weapon is troublesome, so my sample size bit rather small. But just the preliminary search gave me the Abyss Gygas and Adlet (this is the easier one to deal with conceptually, since it is a wolf person). The Gygas has [mwk adamantine warhammer +25/+20/+15 (4d6+19/19-20/x3), bite +19 (2d8+6 plus wrenching spasms)] while the Adlet has [+1 spear +17/+12/+7 (1d8+7/×3), bite +10 (1d6+2 plus 1d6 cold)].
This definitely shows evidence for the intent. Of course there was a time when it looked like all the monk stat blocks were going to turn out to be wrong too.
I'm not disagreeing with that part. I just don't see how it's relevant.
The bite becomes a secondary attack... and is still your only natural attack. A creature with only a tail slap would still use full BAB and deal 1.5 STR damage.
I agree that this is (more than likely) the intent, but I don't know if the rules bear that out.
Sigh do you understand how general rule specific exception works? Ill rephrase things there is no rule in the game that I am aware of that let's you attack with q natural weapon and a manufactured weapon that does not turn the natural attack into a secondary weapon. Do you understand this? There are no exceptions to tgis rule. The state of primary or secondary attack prior to the addition of a manufactured weapon is irrelevant.
Sigh do you understand how general rule specific exception works? Ill rephrase things there is no rule in the game that I am aware of that let's you attack with q natural weapon and a manufactured weapon that does not turn the natural attack into a secondary weapon. Do you understand this? There are no exceptions to tgis rule. The state of primary or secondary attack prior to the addition of a manufactured weapon is irrelevant.I'm not disagreeing with that part. I just don't see how it's relevant.
The bite becomes a secondary attack... and is still your only natural attack. A creature with only a tail slap would still use full BAB and deal 1.5 STR damage.
I agree that this is (more than likely) the intent, but I don't know if the rules bear that out.
No no no. That is what I keep telling you.
Explain how it is relevant that the attack becomes secondary. How does its secondary status interact with a rule that says "If a creature has only one natural attack, it is always made using the creature’s full base attack bonus and adds 1-1/2 times the creature’s Strength bonus on damage rolls."
That rule DOES NOT CARE if it is secondary, it still applies. That's the point.
Th intent is for the primary attack to be treated as a secondary attack if a manufactured weapon is used. The bestiary stat blockd show this. IIRC trolls and should be able to give a good example.
Th intent is for the primary attack to be treated as a secondary attack if a manufactured weapon is used. The bestiary stat blockd show this. IIRC trolls and should be able to give a good example.
I agree that the stat blocks reflect a reduced attack bonus, likely because that is the intent of the rules. BUT, stat blocks are a result of the rules, rules do not come from them, and they can be wrong. So the question is, what does the actual rule say? From what I can see, calling it secondary is irrelevant. It can be secondary or even thirdary or fourthary. It's still your only natural attack, and if you have a single natural attack (no mention of manufactured attacks) it ALWAYS uses full BAB.
Going over the sentence in my head multiple times, I see that perhaps it depends on what the word "only" means. The rest of the text would seem to imply that the use of the word natural in that sentence is deliberate, since it is frequently left out elsewhere and only implied. But, only could mean if your only attack is a single natural attack. Since that seems to be how it plays out, that is probably the correct reading, but that makes it poor editing when taken as part of the whole.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is the correct interpretation, the creature must only have one natural attack. No manufactured weapon attacks, and no other natural weapon attacks that it's not using.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
The bite becomes a secondary attack... and is still your only natural attack. A creature with only a tail slap would still use full BAB and deal 1.5 STR damage.
The first part invalidates the second part, full stop.
If you come to my table with this, I will correct it.
If you come to a PFS table with this, I will correct it.
The correction is that you take the -5 penalty and you don't deal 1.5 STR.
You are misreading the rules, period.
The bite becomes a secondary attack... and is still your only natural attack. A creature with only a tail slap would still use full BAB and deal 1.5 STR damage.The first part invalidates the second part, full stop.
How so? In what way is a secondary natural attack not capable of being the only natural attack? Or why would a tail slap not use full BAB if it were the only attack?
PS: Chill out. I said I had no intention of doing this. No need to get all defensive. That's why I put that in the OP.
That is the correct interpretation, the creature must only have one natural attack. No manufactured weapon attacks, and no other natural weapon attacks that it's not using.
The problem with the wording is that it doesn't say anything about manufactured attacks in the relevant portion. That is why it is not a case of specific overriding general, because it would not invalidate either the specific or the general.
A creature with only one natural attack and a weapon still has only one natural attack.
The bite becomes a secondary attack... and is still your only natural attack. A creature with only a tail slap would still use full BAB and deal 1.5 STR damage.The first part invalidates the second part, full stop.
How so? In what way is a secondary natural attack not capable of being the only natural attack? Or why would a tail slap not use full BAB if it were the only attack?
PS: Chill out. I said I had no intention of doing this. No need to get all defensive. That's why I put that in the OP.
A secondary natural attack can still be your only natural attack. But that doesn't mean that you have "only one natural attack" because your have one natural attack and a manufactured weapon attack. If you're using a manufactured weapon, you no longer have "only" the one natural weapon in your arsenal so you no longer get full BAB or 1.5 Str.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How so?
I don't like these "clearly not what the rules say" line of thinking. They lead to nothing but trouble.
This type of thinking is responsible for us not being able to replace a base class with a prestige class. Look at spoiler for explanation.
Devs come along and say "no you still need to meet the pre-reqs" to which the response was "we do with the PrC itself". This was responded with no and here a FAQ to prevent. Which was responded with "see I can still do it despite the FAQ." Which resulted in update #2 and another round of "see I can still do it" which finally....
Results in literally a "no retraining base classes for prestige classes, happy now?"
This is the same type of "RAW doesn't say I can't act while dead" line of thinking. Clearly the rules are against your view, but you /shrug and continue forging onward.
A secondary natural attack can still be your only natural attack. But that doesn't mean that you have "only one natural attack" because your have one natural attack and a manufactured weapon attack. If you're using a manufactured weapon, you no longer have "only" the one natural weapon in your arsenal so you no longer get full BAB or 1.5 Str.
Ok, let's apply that to the rest of the section:
If a creature has only one natural attack, it is always made using the creature’s full base attack bonus and adds 1-1/2 times the creature’s Strength bonus on damage rolls. This increase does not apply if the creature has multiple attacks but only takes one. If a creature has only one type of attack, but has multiple attacks per round, that attack is treated as a primary attack, regardless of its type.
So if "only one natural attack" actually means "only one attack" and manufactured attacks in conjunction count as "multiple attacks", then if a creature has only one type of attack, that isn't limited to natural attacks either. That would mean that a character with only a sword and a +6 BAB would treat that attack as a primary attack because its type, manufactured, is disregarded. And since all primary attacks are made at full BAB, even multiple attacks from one type, then his attacks would be at full BAB. This "more specific" rule would contradict the general rule of iterative attacks even though that is what created multiple attacks.
You either have to pick and choose which times attack means natural attack and which times it doesn't or assume only one natural attack means only one natural attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The big thing here that bothers me too is this "I'm right and I don't want to listen to others, I want to prove my idea to everyone" idea. Not just on this thread but many threads. The OP asks a question, they get responses and continue to say they don't count. Then more people say the same thing and the OP continues to say the answers don't count. Makes it an almost futile quest for both parties.
So if "only one natural attack" actually means "only one attack" and manufactured attacks in conjunction count as "multiple attacks", then if a creature has only one type of attack, that isn't limited to natural attacks either. That would mean that a character with only a sword and a +6 BAB would treat that attack as a primary attack because its type, manufactured, is disregarded. And since all primary attacks are made at full BAB, even multiple attacks from one type, then his attacks would be at full BAB. This "more specific" rule would contradict the general rule of iterative attacks even though that is what created multiple attacks.
You either have to pick and choose which times attack means natural attack and which times it doesn't or assume only one natural attack means only one natural attack.
As people have been pointing out, once you have a manufactured weapon you no longer count for this. It could be reworded to say, "If a creatures only way to attack is one natural attack it uses full BAB and 1.5 STR."
How so?I don't like these "clearly not what the rules say" line of thinking. They lead to nothing but trouble.
This type of thinking is responsible for us not being able to replace a base class with a prestige class. Look at spoiler for explanation.
** spoiler omitted **
This is the same type of "RAW doesn't say I can't act while dead" line of thinking. Clearly the rules are against your view, but you /shrug and continue forging onward.
None of this addressed the question at all. I thought this was pretty clear too. Just in the other direction. Everyone keeps pointing out that the attack becomes secondary and ignores that that doesn't make a difference.
But here's the problem, despite me saying exactly the opposite, you seem to think I'm trying to find a way to cheat the system. I'm not. I'd be happy for a FAQ to say "nope" to this. That's the point.
Maybe I'm crazy, but sometimes I just sit and read the rule books. Sometimes when I'm doing that, I say "Hey, wait a second..." and then because I'm crazy, I bring those things up here on the boards because I just plain have fun talking about how all the rules interact. Not because I want to jump into a PFS game and declare myself "the winner". I simply play Devil's Advocate to get to the bottom of stuff, all Socratic like.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Maybe I'm crazy ... I just plain have fun talking about how all the rules interact
Well, those listing to these type of theories don't have fun talking to you about them.
Anyway, you might be right. To prove, show us a single stat block from the 2918 monsters with Natural weapons that proves your case. Just one (and not one with a special ability like Dragon's Bite ability.)
In 30 seconds I can give you 100 examples of "you are wrong".
The big thing here that bothers me too is this "I'm right and I don't want to listen to others, I want to prove my idea to everyone" idea. Not just on this thread but many threads. The OP asks a question, they get responses and continue to say they don't count. Then more people say the same thing and the OP continues to say the answers don't count. Makes it an almost futile quest for both parties.
That's exactly the problem. Someone said "It becomes secondary" and I said "Well the wording doesn't give a hoot if it's primary or secondary." Then people kept parroting that.
I know it doesn't (shouldn't) work the way I propose. I want you to tell me why that is. But I'm not going to accept faulty reasoning. This isn't the same as that guy the other day trying to stack darkness and deeper darkness. There was a line of reasoning that invalidated it (two actually) and he wasn't having it. But being secondary does not invalidate what I proposed.
You mention how it could be reworded, and I said that myself and used similar wording. The problem is it doesn't say that, and in fact the wording at best struggles to convey what it means. And reading it in such a way also ends up causing another problem down the line, as I pointed out.
Maybe I'm crazy ... I just plain have fun talking about how all the rules interactWell, those listing to these type of theories don't have fun talking to you about them.
Anyway, you might be right. To prove, show us a single stat block from the 2918 monsters with Natural weapons that proves your case. Just one (and not one with a special ability like Dragon's Bite ability.)
In 30 seconds I can give you 100 examples of "you are wrong".
Hey, remember that time it turned out every monk stat block was wrong? I do.
And if you aren't enjoying this, please stop doing it. I don't want to be responsible for ruining your fun.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Hey, remember that time it turned out every monk stat block was wrong? I do.
Doesn't prove you are right now, and the fact that everyone disagrees with you should be an indication.
You take the proof and ignore it, so this isn't something that can be proved without us finding in the core rulebook "Davick is wrong about natural weapons". So why do you continue to assert you would like proof? There can not by fiat be any proof you will accept.
LordBOB, yea. The best resolution is to lock the thread at this point.
Hey, remember that time it turned out every monk stat block was wrong? I do.Doesn't prove you are right now, and the fact that everyone disagrees with you should be an indication.
You take the proof and ignore it, so this isn't something that can be proved without us finding in the core rulebook "Davick is wrong about natural weapons". So why do you continue to assert you would like proof? There can not by fiat be any proof you will accept.
Look here's the thing. I provided my own proof hours ago and essentially settled it on my own. But that proof was not "it becomes secondary" because that is not a valid proof. But it is the proof that was bandied about even after that. If someone had said that I was wrong because they ate eggs for breakfast, me turning out to be wrong would not necessarily be because of eggs.
Also, I wasn't the one trying to use stat blocks to say I was right, was I?
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I provided my own proof hours ago
Also, I wasn't the one trying to use stat blocks to say I was right, was I?
You provided no proof, just a rule that is no longer valid because you are using Manufactured weapons.
You monk stat block "proof" isn't good. Because Bestiary 1 has no Monk's and as such no incorrect stat blocks involving monks. But B1 was written at the same time as the core rules. There would be examples in the B1 of your "proof" but you will not find it in that book.
I provided my own proof hours ago
Also, I wasn't the one trying to use stat blocks to say I was right, was I?
You provided no proof, just a rule that is no longer valid because you are using Manufactured weapons.
You monk stat block "proof" isn't good. Because Bestiary 1 has no Monk's and as such no incorrect stat blocks involving monks. But B1 was written at the same time as the core rules. There would be examples in the B1 of your "proof" but you will not find it in that book.
Perhaps I was unclear, I provided my own proof as to why I WAS WRONG hours ago. And I wasn't using stat blocks as proof. THAT WAS YOU. SO of course it isn't good proof. That was my entire point.
No, for two reasons that are related. First, you gain the 1.5 bonus only if you only have one natural attack; if you have a manufactured weapon, you don't only have one natural attack, you also have a weapon attack. Second, there is nothing about the 1.5 wording that says it is persistent in the order of operations. You determine the original bonus, which might be 1.5. Then, if you use it as a secondary attack, you perform a new calculation, and secondary attacks specify half bonus. Specifically,
Secondary attacks are made using the creature's base attack bonus –5 and add only 1/2 the creature's Strength bonus on damage rolls.
I take the words "always" and "only" only to mean, "absolutely," and not to mean, "irrespectively."
Th intent is for the primary attack to be treated as a secondary attack if a manufactured weapon is used. The bestiary stat blockd show this. IIRC trolls and should be able to give a good example.
I agree that the stat blocks reflect a reduced attack bonus, likely because that is the intent of the rules. BUT, stat blocks are a result of the rules, rules do not come from them, and they can be wrong. So the question is, what does the actual rule say? From what I can see, calling it secondary is irrelevant. It can be secondary or even thirdary or fourthary. It's still your only natural attack, and if you have a single natural attack (no mention of manufactured attacks) it ALWAYS uses full BAB.
Going over the sentence in my head multiple times, I see that perhaps it depends on what the word "only" means. The rest of the text would seem to imply that the use of the word natural in that sentence is deliberate, since it is frequently left out elsewhere and only implied. But, only could mean if your only attack is a single natural attack. Since that seems to be how it plays out, that is probably the correct reading, but that makes it poor editing when taken as part of the whole.
The rules actually say two different things. The rules for combining natural attacks with manufactured weapons are special case/exception to the rules and exceptions take priority.
A secondary natural attack can still be your only natural attack. But that doesn't mean that you have "only one natural attack" because your have one natural attack and a manufactured weapon attack. If you're using a manufactured weapon, you no longer have "only" the one natural weapon in your arsenal so you no longer get full BAB or 1.5 Str.Ok, let's apply that to the rest of the section:
If a creature has only one natural attack, it is always made using the creature’s full base attack bonus and adds 1-1/2 times the creature’s Strength bonus on damage rolls. This increase does not apply if the creature has multiple attacks but only takes one. If a creature has only one type of attack, but has multiple attacks per round, that attack is treated as a primary attack, regardless of its type.So if "only one natural attack" actually means "only one attack" and manufactured attacks in conjunction count as "multiple attacks", then if a creature has only one type of attack, that isn't limited to natural attacks either. That would mean that a character with only a sword and a +6 BAB would treat that attack as a primary attack because its type, manufactured, is disregarded. And since all primary attacks are made at full BAB, even multiple attacks from one type, then his attacks would be at full BAB. This "more specific" rule would contradict the general rule of iterative attacks even though that is what created multiple attacks.
You either have to pick and choose which times attack means natural attack and which times it doesn't or assume only one natural attack means only one natural attack.
"Only one natural attack" doesn't mean "only one attack" at all, so the rest of your argument falls apart. Even beyond the initial false premise, none of that follows logically, since natural attacks have rules that are explicitly different from those applied to iterative attacks with natural weapons.
To see if the section you quoted from Natural Attacks applies, ask this question: How many attacks, and of what type, does the creature possess? If the answer is >1, it doesn't apply. If any of the attacks are not natural attacks, i.e. attacks with a manufactured weapon, it doesn't apply. If and only if the creature has one attack and that one attack is a natural attack, then it applies.
Instead, you seem to be asking the question "How many natural attacks does the creature have?" and answering "Only one!" and concluding that therefore the quoted section from Natural Attacks applies.
To further clarify, look at the part you quoted that says "This increase does not apply if the creature has multiple attacks but only takes one." Right there it is saying that not only do you need to have no more than one natural attack, you need to have only one attack period. If that condition isn't met, you don't get the full BAB or 1.5 Str increase.
As people have been pointing out, once you have a manufactured weapon you no longer count for this. It could be reworded to say, "If a creatures only way to attack is one natural attack it uses full BAB and 1.5 STR."So if "only one natural attack" actually means "only one attack" and manufactured attacks in conjunction count as "multiple attacks", then if a creature has only one type of attack, that isn't limited to natural attacks either. That would mean that a character with only a sword and a +6 BAB would treat that attack as a primary attack because its type, manufactured, is disregarded. And since all primary attacks are made at full BAB, even multiple attacks from one type, then his attacks would be at full BAB. This "more specific" rule would contradict the general rule of iterative attacks even though that is what created multiple attacks.
You either have to pick and choose which times attack means natural attack and which times it doesn't or assume only one natural attack means only one natural attack.
Well, that wouldn't be correct either, since the "make everything secondary" thing only comes up when you actually mix natural and manufactured attacks and try to "use both as part of a full attack action". If you, for instance, simply attacked with only your single natural attack as a standard action, then sure, it would be the "primary and x1.5" clause. Otherwise, your bite attack would be crippled because you were simply wearing gauntlets (and not using them at all).
This is actually important since bite attacks are highly attractive for reach builds so they can threaten adjacent squares. So for those AoO attacks, sure, it would hit like a 2handed weapon. They might also be attractive to TWF builds for standard action and AoO as well, I suppose (especially if you use unarmed strikes and don't have the feats to go into dragon style, since hey, it is going to be enhanced by the same AoMF).
You've already stated you agree with the intent of the rule as explained by numerous posters. Yet you continue to argue the other side? At that point, this is no longer a rules debate, it is a debate over semantics and wording. If you have experienced cases where the reading of these rules is unclear to more than a few players/DMs, then I suggest you create a FAQ thread instead of a debate thread.
There are many, many, (did I mention MANY) places where the rules are *just* vague enough to be re-interpreted outside the intent. That does not mean most people surrender their common sense when reading them. That does not make them worthy of discussion. Why do you feel this area of the rules needs refinement? Is it preventing some playstyle or build? Is it creating problems in other areas of the rules for you/your group/people you know? Context matters if you're going to re-interpret something. Again, if all you are looking for is clarity in the text, a FAQ thread is more appropriate.
The ability to make the attacks is actually irrelevant. Its making the attacks that matters. As soon as he chooses to punch someon with the gauntlet and bit the bite becomes a secondary attack.
|
universal monster rules on natural attacks from PRD
... If a creature has only one natural attack, it is always made using the creature's full base attack bonus and adds 1-1/2 the creature's Strength bonus on damage rolls. This increase does not apply if the creature has multiple attacks but only takes one. If a creature has only one type of attack, but has multiple attacks per round, that attack is treated as a primary attack, regardless of its type. ...Some creatures treat one or more of their attacks differently, such as dragons, which always receive 1-1/2 times their Strength bonus on damage rolls with their bite attack. These exceptions are noted in the creature's description.
Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action (although often a creature must forgo one natural attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a claw, tentacle, or slam). Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack's original type.
If a creature is using a solo primary natural weapon (one that would normally get 1 1/2 times strength for damage) with an attack from a manufactured weapon as part of a full attack action, is it only one natural attack? Or is it a natural attack and an attack with a manufactured weapon?
It seems to me that the cases are exclusive. Either you have only one natural attack or you are treating all of their natural attacks as secondary attacks during that full attack action, regardless of the attack's original type.
The ability to make the attacks is actually irrelevant. Its making the attacks that matters. As soon as he chooses to punch someon with the gauntlet and bit the bite becomes a secondary attack.
The ability to make the attacks is not irrelevant due to the line "This increase does not apply if the creature has multiple attacks but only takes one."
Because again, becoming secondary is completely and entirely irrelevant.
So the question is, would a character with a (let's make it) tail slap attack who is carrying a shield (with which he is proficient) gain full BAB and 1.5x strength or not?
So the question is, would a character with a (let's make it) tail slap attack who is carrying a shield (with which he is proficient) gain full BAB and 1.5x strength or not?
Sure. Because in that case, the attack is not potentiated until he surrenders his shield bonus to AC. If he or she bashes in conjunction with a tail attack, he or she would temporarily lose the special provisions for having only one natural weapon attack.
Sure. Because in that case, the attack is not potentiated until he surrenders his shield bonus to AC. If he or she bashes in conjunction with a tail attack, he or she would temporarily lose the special provisions for having only one natural weapon attack.So the question is, would a character with a (let's make it) tail slap attack who is carrying a shield (with which he is proficient) gain full BAB and 1.5x strength or not?
So does your answer change if the character has Improved Shield Bash? Or what about if they are wearing the gauntlets that came with their full plate? Or if the character has Improved Unarmed Strike?