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?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?
No.
EDIT: Actually, on the gauntlets, yes.
EDIT 2: It may seem like a very fine point, but Improved Shield Bash and IUS are character options and you can choose not activate them. As long as your decision to include or not include those benefits is consistent with your actions, it is up to you.
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?
Yes it is maintained if he only "carries" the shield, but if he shield bashes the attack is treated as if it is secondary attack.
This is really simple.
If you use a manufactured weapon to attack the natural attack operates as if it is a secondary natural attack. <---That is all there is to it.
This is really simple.
If you use a manufactured weapon to attack the natural attack operates as if it is a secondary natural attack. <---That is all there is to it.
Now don't start that again.
It can be secondary and still be done at full BAB and use 1.5 STR. Its secondary status is irrelevant.
The rules also state that it does not do this if you have attacks but do not use them. So simply carrying a shield, if manufactured attacks are to be counted, invalidates it. If manufactured attacks are not to be counted, then the character would use full BAB and 1.5 str even if it is a secondary attack used in conjunction with manufactured attacks. It has to be one or the other.
|
This is really simple.
If you use a manufactured weapon to attack the natural attack operates as if it is a secondary natural attack. <---That is all there is to it.
Now don't start that again.
It can be secondary and still be done at full BAB and use 1.5 STR. Its secondary status is irrelevant.
The rules also state that it does not do this if you have attacks but do not use them. So simply carrying a shield, if manufactured attacks are to be counted, invalidates it. If manufactured attacks are not to be counted, then the character would use full BAB and 1.5 str even if it is a secondary attack used in conjunction with manufactured attacks. It has to be one or the other.
Don't you start it again, Davick. If you use a manufactured weapon, your natural weapon attacks are secondary.
The bolded section of your statement actually is listed as: This increase does not apply if the creature has multiple attacks but only takes one.
The increase does not apply. It is talking about the single natural weapon, and the 1 1/2 times strength to damage. If you have multiple natural weapons, and use only one, you do /not/ get the increase, only if that is your only natural attack. (Exception: a dragon's bite, or other specifically called out attacks.)
Regardless, if you attack with a manufactured weapon, and any or all of your natural attacks, those natural attacks are secondary.
This is really simple.
If you use a manufactured weapon to attack the natural attack operates as if it is a secondary natural attack. <---That is all there is to it.
Now don't start that again.
It can be secondary and still be done at full BAB and use 1.5 STR. Its secondary status is irrelevant.
The rules also state that it does not do this if you have attacks but do not use them. So simply carrying a shield, if manufactured attacks are to be counted, invalidates it. If manufactured attacks are not to be counted, then the character would use full BAB and 1.5 str even if it is a secondary attack used in conjunction with manufactured attacks. It has to be one or the other.
Show me a stack block that supports your view. You can't.
I also said you have to ATTACK with the manufactured weapon. Therefore holding the shield will NOT affect how the natural attack works. If you ATTACK with the shield then you get .5 str bonus. That is a FACT.
This is really simple.
If you use a manufactured weapon to attack the natural attack operates as if it is a secondary natural attack. <---That is all there is to it.
Now don't start that again.
It can be secondary and still be done at full BAB and use 1.5 STR. Its secondary status is irrelevant.
The rules also state that it does not do this if you have attacks but do not use them. So simply carrying a shield, if manufactured attacks are to be counted, invalidates it. If manufactured attacks are not to be counted, then the character would use full BAB and 1.5 str even if it is a secondary attack used in conjunction with manufactured attacks. It has to be one or the other.
Show me a stack block that supports your view. You can't.
I also said you have to ATTACK with the manufactured weapon. Therefore holding the shield will NOT affect how the natural attack works. If you ATTACK with the shield then you get .5 str bonus. That is a FACT.
Rules don't come from stat blocks. Remember when all the monk stat blocks were wrong for a few months?
You saying you have to attack, doesn't mean that's what the actual rule says. You're restating your same claim, but not addressing my question.
"This increase does not apply if the creature has multiple attacks but only takes one." So where are you getting that you have to attack with the shield for it to count?
If you attack with a shield and a bite, the bite becomes secondary. Check. A secondary attack normally is at BAB -5 and .5 STR. Check. However if a character has only one natural attack it is at full BAB and does 1.5 STR, but this increase does not apply if the creature has multiple attacks but only takes one. So either wearing the shield precludes you from the benefit whether you use it or not, or the bite is at full BAB and 1.5 STR regardless of being secondary. It has to be one or the other.
Like I said, I would never do this. Furthermore, I wouldn't allow a player to do it either. But that in no way reflects what is actually printed on the paper.
So if you acknowledge that a secondary attack can be at full BAB and 1.5 STR, what about mixing it with a weapon specifically changes that?
I did try to find a stat block that was ordered [weapon +x, bite +y OR bite +z] but I couldn't find one.
What is your opinion on the character with a tail slap and a shield?
Like I said, I would never do this. Furthermore, I wouldn't allow a player to do it either. But that in no way reflects what is actually printed on the paper.
So if you acknowledge that a secondary attack can be at full BAB and 1.5 STR, what about mixing it with a weapon specifically changes that?
I did try to find a stat block that was ordered [weapon +x, bite +y OR bite +z] but I couldn't find one.
What is your opinion on the character with a tail slap and a shield?
It only reflects the basic way that we apply the rules applied on paper.
And we also simply read the rules in the order they are printed on paper, which would reflect that it becomes secondary when you do mixing.
We already explains the general rule/specific exception principle. It is fairly fundamental to the way that any of the rules are applied. What more do you want from us? How can we convince you? What evidence can we bring to bare?
Hahaha, this reminds me of the scene from "A Few Good Men" where the lawyer objects and is overruled, and then she strenuously objects to the overruling.
Anyway, which brings me to this point: "If it doesn't say it" argument. Look, the core book is nearly 600 pages long. Sure, it could handle all situations, but then the book would be longer than Obamacare. Plus, they have written other books and come along and some things just don't fully mesh, which is why this forum is really great.
I'm pretty sure that yes, if it is only one natural weapon (which I believe the developer assumed a creature was "only" using natural weapons when writing it since that's 99% of the time the situation), then said bonus applies. But when you go to that 1% of the time when they hold a sword, now what? Oh, well natural attacks are shifted to secondary attacks? Well, is there something about secondary attacks getting the bonus? Well, no, I guess not because nobody ever thought of a secondary attack getting a bonus.
But wait, there is a situation where this is an only natural attack, but also some manufactured weapons thrown in. Well, I would suppose like everyone else that when you think about "only natural attack" the developer was probably thinking "only one attack that happens to be with a natural weapon". Well, why didn't he write it that way? Probably because he/she never considered the 1% chance that it would hold swords while having a sole natural bite attack. So, they amend it with the "using manufactured weapons makes all natural attacks secondary" kind of thing. But, but....which this is why courts often look into the intent of the law versus what is written.
So, you see how this goes. If you want to be a tax lawyer and argue for every deduction in the tax code, that's your right. If you want to go by what the developers intended, which probably leads to a better gaming experience, then there is that option as well. The forums are just a tool to either get one or the other.
Like I said, I would never do this. Furthermore, I wouldn't allow a player to do it either. But that in no way reflects what is actually printed on the paper.
So if you acknowledge that a secondary attack can be at full BAB and 1.5 STR, what about mixing it with a weapon specifically changes that?
I did try to find a stat block that was ordered [weapon +x, bite +y OR bite +z] but I couldn't find one.
What is your opinion on the character with a tail slap and a shield?
It only reflects the basic way that we apply the rules applied on paper.
And we also simply read the rules in the order they are printed on paper, which would reflect that it becomes secondary when you do mixing.
We already explains the general rule/specific exception principle. It is fairly fundamental to the way that any of the rules are applied. What more do you want from us? How can we convince you? What evidence can we bring to bare?
Well you could start by explaining why it becoming secondary or how generic/specific priority is relevant.
If you get into multiple artacks meaninf manufactured and natural, the problem is one of suspension of disbelief. A character with only a tail slap uses full BAB and 1.5 str. If that character takes improved unarmed strike or shield proficiency and improved shield bash, they now have multiple attacks whether they use them or not and so suddenly the tail slap becomes weaker. This would even apply if the guy happened to have a dagger or maybe even a sheathed sword and quick draw. Fortunately the section is worded to imply that attacks means natural attacks and none of that is a problem. The "problem" that creates is that a guy who is good at tail slapping is good at tail slapping.
Yes its a corner case. Yes it doesn't make sense. Yes I would houserule it to work correctly, but that doesn't change what it is. Unfortunately a lot of the people arguing against it seem to be doing so from a position of trying to win the discussion for the glory of RAI. As if pointing out a shortcoming in RAW and acknowledging it is a bad thing. Its not. We all want the rules to work like they're supposed to, but sometimes they don't. Instead of pretending they do or sweeping it under the rug, how about admitting that something (clearly) isn't right and working to fix it? Its OK to say "yeah that must be a mistake because this is a 600 page book made by people, some things are sure to be messed up. That's OK because none of us are morons."
Newspaper to the nose!
Bad munchkin, no doughnut.
Well you could start by explaining why it becoming secondary or how generic/specific priority is relevant.
What does this even mean? How is generic vs specific rules ever not relevant?
If you get into multiple artacks meaninf manufactured and natural, the problem is one of suspension of disbelief. A character with only a tail slap uses full BAB and 1.5 str. If that character takes improved unarmed strike or shield proficiency and improved shield bash, they now have multiple attacks whether they use them or not and so suddenly the tail slap becomes weaker. This would even apply if the guy happened to have a dagger or maybe even a sheathed sword and quick draw. Fortunately the section is worded to imply that attacks means natural attacks and none of that is a problem. The "problem" that creates is that a guy who is good at tail slapping is good at tail slapping.
Your argument is incorrect. There is no suspension of disbelief as you describe it. The tail slap doesn't weaken because the character has the potential to make those attacks. It is downgraded to secondary when the character makes attacks with both manufactured and natural weapons.
And what exactly is the problem wih someone good at tail slapping being good at tail slapping? There's something I don't think you're communicating clearly.
The tail slap doesn't weaken because the character has the potential to make those attacks. It is downgraded to secondary when the character makes attacks with both manufactured and natural weapons.
Wrong. "This increase does not apply if the creature has multiple attacks but only takes one." So potential does in fact cause a downgrade, IF you take it to include manufactured attacks.
Also, there was a reason I put that instance of the word problem in quotations. That was also only a "problem" if you reject the suspension of disbelief problem's line of reasoning. As in, I don't have a problem with someone goad at tail slapping being good at tail slapping. My complaint is with the opposite. Or with people saying they can have their cake and eat it too, as it were.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
1. If a creature has one natural attack, and no other attacks, it is made at full BAB and 1.5 STRx
2. If the creature has more than one natural attack, use the natural attack chart to determine which is which, but all are either 1.0x or 0.5x STR.
3. If the creature uses manufactured weapons as part of their full attack and natural attacks, all natural attacks are secondary, and are therefore -5 and 0.5x STR.
4. If the creature has the ability to make manufactured attacks, but does not, and only uses natural weapons, use steps 1 or 2.
This thread is making it so much more complicated than it really is.
It is more like "this thread is attempting to intentionally mis-understand the rules."
use full BAB and 1.5 str even if it is a secondary attack used in conjunction with manufactured attacks
This is the part that is wrong, not following the rules, that you can't find a core rule book written (Bestiary I) stat block that agrees with you.
Rules don't come from stat blocks. Remember when all the monk stat blocks were wrong for a few months?
You keep bring up this Strawman. The core rules were written when the Bestiary I was written. If your theory was correct, then there would be stat blocks in Bestiary I to prove it. You are wrong, period. Full Stop. There is no stat block in the Core to prove it. It doesn't matter that some NPC stat block not written by the core development team was wrong (Monk).
But that in no way reflects what is actually printed on the paper.
There is no rule you have quoted, is printed, or similar that agrees with your view. It is from nowhere. You have yet to show anything to support your side. What you quote to support your view actually supports the opposite view.
The tail slap doesn't weaken because the character has the potential to make those attacks. It is downgraded to secondary when the character makes attacks with both manufactured and natural weapons.Wrong. "This increase does not apply if the creature has multiple attacks but only takes one." So potential does in fact cause a downgrade, IF you take it to include manufactured attacks.
Also, there was a reason I put that instance of the word problem in quotations. That was also only a "problem" if you reject the suspension of disbelief problem's line of reasoning. As in, I don't have a problem with someone goad at tail slapping being good at tail slapping. My complaint is with the opposite. Or with people saying they can have their cake and eat it too, as it were.
But you don't take it to include manufactured attacks because that limitation is in the chunk talking about the interaction of separate natural weapons. That's not discussing the interaction between manufactured weapons and natural weapons - that happens elsewhere.
Potential attacks with manufactured are irrelevant if you never take them. Potential attacks with other natural weapons are relevant because the rule that your sole natural weapons attacks at full BAB and 1.5 STR applies only if you have one natural weapon available. That's how it's written. That's how it's always worked. A natural weapons, even if ordinarily a secondary attack, will still use full BAB and 1.5 STR if it's the sole natural weapons available because it is treated like a primary natural attack.
That's what this "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" language means. Even if it is ordinarily a secondary natural attack, if it's the sole one, it's treated like a primary natural attack and benefits from the full BAB and 1.5 STR rule.
However, a separate, specific rule says that any natural attack (any one you ever make) becomes a secondary natural attack, whether it was originally a primary natural attack, a secondary natural attack, or the sole natural attack available. Secondary natural attacks always follow this rule (excepting the scenario above, which is relevant when no manufactured weapons are actually used): "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."
Specific trumps general. Your argument is that the full BAB/1.5 STR language is the specific which trumps the general secondary natural attacks are made at -5 BAB/.5 STR language. This is never how it has worked. The reason the request for a rulebook/statblock example is relevant is because examples abound reflecting that the correct interpretation is not yours. If you could find even a single example following your interpretation you would at least have more of a leg to stand on.
It does not work the way you're claiming it could. It has never worked that way. It has been explained a number of times, but you keep arguing that the explanations aren't good enough or they aren't relevant, even though they are directly on point. It's not arguing for clarity or furtherance of rules development at this point because there's no reason to believe that anybody thinks the interpretation you're espousing is in anyway the intended one. That a potential ambiguity might possibly exist in some rules doesn't necessarily mean anything. If no example exists actually following the alternate interpretation (that nobody else has ever argued in favor of), it's a pretty good bet that the ambiguity is being forced into the rules, rather than the rules actually being unclear themselves.
You said you'd never follow this interpretation, so you must not actually think that's how the rules are supposed to be interpreted. After all, if you legitimately thought that this is how the rules are supposed to be interpreted, why would you have an issue playing it that way? Since you clearly don't think this is how the rules are intended to be read, why are you still arguing?
|
If you need an example of a creature that has a single Natural Attack, as well as a manufactured weapon, here is a Jackalwere from Bestiary 3:
JACKALWERE CR 2
XP 600
CE Medium magical beast (shapechanger)
Init +3; Senses darkvision 60 ft., low-light vision, scent;
Perception +7
DEFENSE
AC 17, touch 14, flat-footed 13 (+2 armor, +3 Dex, +1 dodge,
+1 natural)
hp 22 (3d10+6)
Fort +5, Ref +6, Will +2
DR 5/cold iron
OFFENSE
Speed 30 ft.
Melee mwk battleaxe +6 (1d8+2/×3), bite +0 (1d6+1) or
bite +5 (1d6+3)
Special Attacks sleep gaze, weapon intuition
STATISTICS
Str 15, Dex 17, Con 15, Int 12, Wis 12, Cha 12
Base Atk +3; CMB +5; CMD 19
Feats Alertness, Dodge
Skills Acrobatics +7, Bluff +6, Perception +7, Sense Motive +3,
Stealth +7, Survival +6; Racial Modifiers +2 Bluff, +2 Survival
Languages Common
SQ change shape (human, hybrid, and
jackal; polymorph), jackal empathy
Now if you take a look at the attacks, with the Strength of 15, you can see that it has the option of using the Battleaxe and Bite with the Bite at 1/2 STR, or using the Bite at 1 1/2 STR.
I don't know if this will help out.
That suggests my gauntlet theory is flawed, but Davick is still wrong.
I gotta step in here...
The issue is that you only get the benefit of full BAB and +1.5 str to damage if that is your ONLY attack... period. Every player race either comes with natural attacks or has an unarmed strike. If you add a bite to that, then it cannot be the character's only attack.
If you are wielding a shield and have a bite... guess what, still not getting full BAB and 1/5xStr. Because you could make an unarmed strike... that is your natural attack, and that is part of your race. Make a character with a bite and no arms and then we can talk.
You do not need Improved Unarmed Strike to make an unarmed strike. Period. It may be crappy, and it may provoke an AoO, but its still an attack. A character with a sword and a bite does not get a 1.5xStr bite because they have another attack by virtue of BAB. Whether or not they use it is only relevant to the discussion of Primary vs. Secondary.
You do not suddenly get to use 1.5x STR because you chose not to make crappy unarmed strikes or lousy non-proficient sheild bashes... you had the choice to use those things, you therefore have other attacks, and do not have JUST ONE natural attack. End of story.
Now, the issue of primary vs. secondary is very real, and that actually does care about whether or not you choose to make certain attacks... but that isn't the issue here.
As long as you have the ability to make an unarmed strike with your race or have other natural attacks you can't have a bite that is your only attack. And if you don't have either of those, then you are a race that can't wield weapons, so the argument is void there too.
I gotta step in here...
The issue is that you only get the benefit of full BAB and +1.5 str to damage if that is your ONLY attack... period. Every player race either comes with natural attacks or has an unarmed strike. If you add a bite to that, then it cannot be the character's only attack.
If you are wielding a shield and have a bite... guess what, still not getting full BAB and 1/5xStr. Because you could make an unarmed strike... that is your natural attack, and that is part of your race. Make a character with a bite and no arms and then we can talk.
You do not need Improved Unarmed Strike to make an unarmed strike. Period. It may be crappy, and it may provoke an AoO, but its still an attack. A character with a sword and a bite does not get a 1.5xStr bite because they have another attack by virtue of BAB. Whether or not they use it is only relevant to the discussion of Primary vs. Secondary.
You do not suddenly get to use 1.5x STR because you chose not to make crappy unarmed strikes or lousy non-proficient sheild bashes... you had the choice to use those things, you therefore have other attacks, and do not have JUST ONE natural attack. End of story.
Now, the issue of primary vs. secondary is very real, and that actually does care about whether or not you choose to make certain attacks... but that isn't the issue here.
As long as you have the ability to make an unarmed strike with your race or have other natural attacks you can't have a bite that is your only attack. And if you don't have either of those, then you are a race that can't wield weapons, so the argument is void there too.
This.
I'm not even going to address what everyone else said because it was the same irrelevant points over and over other than to day: I'be not been trying to say that everyone but me is wrong. That is why there are no stat blocks that support it. I've been trying to say that the words do not accomplish their intended goal. Whoever did.the natural attack section succeeded in conveying their idea, but failed to actually accomplish it. I don't want the stat blocks changed to reflect what the rules say. I want the rules changed to do what they are supposed to and to make the stat blocks right. (Much like how the brawlers flurry was sure to be clearer than the monk's which caused problems despite everyone knowing what it was supposed to do)
But this guy is onto something. Potentially, any creature capable of using a manufactured attack would require the ability to use an unarmed strike and that in itself would preclude them.from the full BAB 1.5 STR ability.
Thank you.
....see i told you guys I wasn't against changing my mind.
I gotta step in here...
The issue is that you only get the benefit of full BAB and +1.5 str to damage if that is your ONLY attack... period. Every player race either comes with natural attacks or has an unarmed strike. If you add a bite to that, then it cannot be the character's only attack.
If you are wielding a shield and have a bite... guess what, still not getting full BAB and 1/5xStr. Because you could make an unarmed strike... that is your natural attack, and that is part of your race. Make a character with a bite and no arms and then we can talk.
You do not need Improved Unarmed Strike to make an unarmed strike. Period. It may be crappy, and it may provoke an AoO, but its still an attack. A character with a sword and a bite does not get a 1.5xStr bite because they have another attack by virtue of BAB. Whether or not they use it is only relevant to the discussion of Primary vs. Secondary.
You do not suddenly get to use 1.5x STR because you chose not to make crappy unarmed strikes or lousy non-proficient sheild bashes... you had the choice to use those things, you therefore have other attacks, and do not have JUST ONE natural attack. End of story.
Now, the issue of primary vs. secondary is very real, and that actually does care about whether or not you choose to make certain attacks... but that isn't the issue here.
As long as you have the ability to make an unarmed strike with your race or have other natural attacks you can't have a bite that is your only attack. And if you don't have either of those, then you are a race that can't wield weapons, so the argument is void there too.
An unarmed strike isn't a natural attack. So ...
Aside from that, you appear to be saying that every creature will always then have more than one attack available. What then is the purpose of the rule allowing 1.5 STR and full BAB with a lone natural attack?
I'm not even going to address what everyone else said because it was the same irrelevant points over and over other than to day: I'be not been trying to say that everyone but me is wrong. That is why there are no stat blocks that support it. I've been trying to say that the words do not accomplish their intended goal.
If everybody who has ever played this has played it the same way and understood the language the same way and, even if there was a momentary bout of confusion, any confusion could easily be reconciled by referring to stat blocks published for monsters to whom these rules would pertain: 1. How unclear can the language be? and, 2. How big of a priority is it to clear up some rules language that possibly could have some ambiguity read into them even though there's no real evidence that said ambiguity has ever cropped up enough to actually cause any problems anywhere?
The only ambiguity that possibly exists here is the one that I mentioned, but you glossed over because somehow it's irrelevant (despite being directly on point). That ambiguity is whether the "specific" rule (and therefore the one with priority) is the full BAB/1.5 STR sole natural attack rule or whether it's the all natural attacks combined with manufactured attacks become secondary -5 BAB/.5 STR rule. That is literally the only ambiguity present. The question is does the "always" for the first rule take priority or does the "all" from the second?
The answer is: In every piece of work ever published by Paizo, its predecessors, or any other entity associated with this game has done so using the latter interpretation.
So ultimately, how is the language really all that ambiguous when the end result, every time, from everyone who has actually played the game, always the same? Gripes about language that could possibly have some other meaning if you read it in a certain way, but there's no evidence that anybody ever does read it that way, and even if somebody ever does read it that way there's mounds of evidence demonstrating the true intended interpretation of the rule, do not need to have time wasted on them.
Well you could start by explaining why it becoming secondary or how generic/specific priority is relevant.
Ok. The game is based upon set of general rules (i.e.: Characters can only take one attack of opportunity per round) that can later be altered or nullified by specific exceptions from feats, class abiliites, items, etc (i.e.: characters with combat reflexes can make a number of AoO's per round equal to their dex modifier.)
Now, let's look at the discussion about the "single attack" rule. First of all, the mention of potential attacks only applies for natural attacks. As in, you do not get the 1.5x damage if you have a bite and claws, and don't use the claws, but you do if you if you have a bite and you just happen to be holding a dagger. So this rule is in fact a rule pertaining only between the interaction of natural attacks, and has little scope outside of it.
The "everything becomes secondary" rule comes from the very specific situation where a creature has both natural attacks and can use a manufactured weapon (which is not entirely common, since a lot, if not the majority of creatures with natural attacks lack hands or other manipulative appendages), and they try to use both sets of attack routines in the same full attack. This begins to get into the interaction between two different rule sets that are not usually mixed together (since most creatures that can use a sword would rather use that than their bare hands). Since this deals with the interaction between the basic natural attack rules and the system at large, it would generally be safe to assume that this is a specific exception. Thus it would override the general rule about single attacks.
I hope this generally made some kind of cohesive sense. I sure that someone will correct me if I am wrong.
This.I'm not even going to address what everyone else said because it was the same irrelevant points over and over other than to day: I'be not been trying to say that everyone but me is wrong. That is why there are no stat blocks that support it. I've been trying to say that the words do not accomplish their intended goal. Whoever did.the natural attack section succeeded in conveying their idea, but failed to actually accomplish it. I don't want the stat blocks changed to reflect what the rules say. I want the rules changed to do what they are supposed to and to make the stat blocks right. (Much like how the brawlers flurry was sure to be clearer than the monk's which caused problems despite everyone knowing what it was supposed to do)
But this guy is onto something. Potentially, any creature capable of using a manufactured attack would require the ability to use an unarmed strike and that in itself would preclude them.from the full BAB 1.5 STR ability.
Thank you.
....see i told you guys I wasn't against changing my mind.
And that right there is why 1) a FAQ thread would have been far better and 2) you should have explained that upfront and you might have avoided a fair amount of the arguing in this thread.
I doubt most people would FAQ this though. Most folks don't seem to have a problem interpreting this section of the rules. They didn't come to the same conclusion as you when reading it. That doesn't make them "wrong" or the rules "bad". If you want this level of clarity in every section of the rules text then the core book would increase in size by at least a third, maybe more. Ever played Advanced Squad Leader or Star Fleet Battles?... that's the road you are headed down, and it will make the game products inordinately expensive and require a larger time investment from Paizo just on rules maintenance. There are plenty of areas that warrant attention to get something fixed... this isn't one of them.
You're flogging a dead horse dude. You are wrong, period. Move on.
An unarmed strike isn't a natural attack. So ...
Aside from that, you appear to be saying that every creature will always then have more than one attack available. What then is the purpose of the rule allowing 1.5 STR and full BAB with a lone natural attack?
But it is an attack... that is my point. You do not lose that attack by virtue of not holding weapons, or by tying up your hands. The 'single natural attack' rule is addressing a base classification, and does not change conditionally.
For example, a creature that actually does have only one natural attack as its only attack does not lose that classification if it is Hasted.
If you, as a base creature, do not have a natural attack listed, you can make an unarmed strike. That is a rule. If you add anything to that attack, then the thing you are adding cannot be your only attack.
Relevant quote: "This increase does not apply if the creature has multiple attacks but only takes one."
If the creature has multiple attacks... not if it has multiple natural attacks... just if it has multiple attacks. Every character race that has the ability to wield a weapon as in the OP, has either hands with which to make an unarmed strike or claws or tentacles or SOMEthing that will ensure that they have multiple attacks other than the Bite in question.
This does not mean that the rule is voided everywhere.... far from it. It just means that it essentially never applies to player races with a bite attack.
You will find medium elementals get just one slam. Hippos get just one bite etc... there are plenty of examples, and these races really do have just the one attack.
In defense of star fleet battlee the captsins logs were interesting reading :p
I actually think I hopefully figured where the ops hangup is.
I will note the posession of anything related to unarmed strike isn't relevant. The ops hangup seems to be that his single attack becomes a primary attack wity 1.5 str damage. Wether an attack is primary or secondary is not an absolute thing. Tentacles or tsil slaps are usually secondary but if you only have 1. They become primary.
From a game point of view the rule reading the majority have pushed treats all natural attacks the same. A creature has two claws one holds a sword in one hand and attacks wity a claw and sword. This treats it as a secondary attack. Likewise if the creature just had a tail slap is now a primary attack etc. The point we have been trying to make is when combining iterative attacks and and naturao weapons the game treats all combinations the same.
Second as has been shown there is no examples in the book of it working like the op wants. Frankly as a player I don't want to fight a lvl 6 vampire fighter hiting me twice with a weapon then slamming me at no penalty.
Thirdly The games rules have been edited muktiple times by different people none of whome are famikiar with all the working parts. This results in sometging akin to a badly fragged hard srive when players set to deliberately pull them apart. Whatever the op has done ro convince himself are the rules we have a lot of examples of how the game is actually played in stat blocks.
|
An unarmed strike isn't a natural attack. So ...
Aside from that, you appear to be saying that every creature will always then have more than one attack available. What then is the purpose of the rule allowing 1.5 STR and full BAB with a lone natural attack?
But it is an attack... that is my point. You do not lose that attack by virtue of not holding weapons, or by tying up your hands. The 'single natural attack' rule is addressing a base classification, and does not change conditionally.
For example, a creature that actually does have only one natural attack as its only attack does not lose that classification if it is Hasted.
If you, as a base creature, do not have a natural attack listed, you can make an unarmed strike. That is a rule. If you add anything to that attack, then the thing you are adding cannot be your only attack.
Relevant quote: "This increase does not apply if the creature has multiple attacks but only takes one."
If the creature has multiple attacks... not if it has multiple natural attacks... just if it has multiple attacks. Every character race that has the ability to wield a weapon as in the OP, has either hands with which to make an unarmed strike or claws or tentacles or SOMEthing that will ensure that they have multiple attacks other than the Bite in question.
This does not mean that the rule is voided everywhere.... far from it. It just means that it essentially never applies to player races with a bite attack.
You will find medium elementals get just one slam. Hippos get just one bite etc... there are plenty of examples, and these races really do have just the one attack.
Said medium elemental and hippo are also able to make an unarmed strike.
The rule about the single attack is in reference to a single natural attack because that is the paragraph it is in. The caveat about manufactured weapons is in a separate paragraph and therefore a seperate entity.
An unarmed strike isn't a natural attack. So ...
Aside from that, you appear to be saying that every creature will always then have more than one attack available. What then is the purpose of the rule allowing 1.5 STR and full BAB with a lone natural attack?
But it is an attack... that is my point. You do not lose that attack by virtue of not holding weapons, or by tying up your hands. The 'single natural attack' rule is addressing a base classification, and does not change conditionally.
For example, a creature that actually does have only one natural attack as its only attack does not lose that classification if it is Hasted.
If you, as a base creature, do not have a natural attack listed, you can make an unarmed strike. That is a rule. If you add anything to that attack, then the thing you are adding cannot be your only attack.
Relevant quote: "This increase does not apply if the creature has multiple attacks but only takes one."
If the creature has multiple attacks... not if it has multiple natural attacks... just if it has multiple attacks. Every character race that has the ability to wield a weapon as in the OP, has either hands with which to make an unarmed strike or claws or tentacles or SOMEthing that will ensure that they have multiple attacks other than the Bite in question.
This does not mean that the rule is voided everywhere.... far from it. It just means that it essentially never applies to player races with a bite attack.
You will find medium elementals get just one slam. Hippos get just one bite etc... there are plenty of examples, and these races really do have just the one attack.
Said medium elemental and hippo are also able to make an unarmed strike.
The rule about the single attack is in reference to a single natural attack because that is the paragraph it is in. The caveat about manufactured weapons is in a separate paragraph and therefore a seperate entity.
From CRB: "Some creatures do not have natural attacks. These creatures can make unarmed strikes just like humans do."
Sooo... no... you cannot Kung-Fu punch with a Hippo. I have heard this idea before, but there is really no basis for the statement anywhere in the rules.
Also, the line about multiple attacks is in the same paragraph. It is literally the next sentence after the one about getting to use Full BAB and getting 1.5 Str if it is your only attack.
So again, I am talking about these two lines: "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."
You are correct... the issue of manufactured weapons is separate. It can still have an effect on whether the attack is Primary of Secondary, but that really isn't what is being discussed here.
Furthermore... even if an elemental or a hippo could make an unarmed strike, that attack would have to be INSTEAD of the Slam or the Bite... otherwise every monster is just ignoring attacks that it has.
Either way, that would mean that those monsters still only have ONE attack. The difference is that we are talking about a humanoid that has limbs with which to wield a sword and a bite attack. Those limbs by necessity can either make natural attacks of their own or make unarmed strikes... that is how humanoids work. So, still, the bite is not the only attack available to the character in question.
Well, Lord Malkov, I would say that the quoted bit about lack of any natural attack does not necessarily say that creatures with natural attacks can't, just that those without can resort to this.
Since unarmed strikes work like a manufactured weapon, I would agree that most creatures with natural weapons would go for their natural attacks first usually (as you see in the rules for animals). This is especially true since an unarmed strike is normally nonlethal and draws an AoO unless the creature has specific training. They would need specific training to do so (improved unarmed strike), and it would be hard to impossible to train an animal to go with it instead of defaulting to their natural attacks. But that hardly matters for the overall discussion, I suppose.
Malkov,
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.
All the necessary information regarding how the Full BAB 1.5 STR rule works is contained here, entirely within the confines of the section regarding Natural Attacks. They use the term "multiple attacks" because, in context, it is redundant to keep typing "multiple natural attacks". This is similar to how they don't repeatedly mention "Fighter Bonus Feats" in the "Bonus Feats" section of the Fighter class. Doing so wastes space because context is clear.
"Multiple attacks" refers specifically to available natural attacks. We know this because it comes directly after referencing creatures which have only one natural attack. It then clarifies that it does not mean creatures which have multiple iterations of one type of attack (e.g., hooves or claws).
The reason monsters don't make unarmed strikes in conjunction with their natural attacks is not because said creatures do not have unarmed strikes available. They do not make them because doing so is vastly, vastly inferior. They can either use their natural attacks (most of which are primary weapons using full BAB and at least full STR) and not make an unarmed strike, or they can make the unarmed strike (provoking an AoO for not having IUS and dealing a pittance for damage) and then make all their natural attacks but now as secondary natural weapons, meaning they all attack at BAB-5 and do at most .5 STR. Why would a creature give up its bite attack if it made an unarmed strike? That makes no sense.
What about a minotaur? They have one natural weapon, a gore attack. A gore is a primary natural weapon. If the minotaur isn't wielding another weapon, is your argument that said minotaur still doesn't get 1.5 STR on its gore attack? The minotaur after all could make an unarmed strike if it wanted to. Does the minotaur also not get 1.5 STR if it's merely holding its Greataxe, but never uses it?
I actually think I hopefully figured where the ops hangup is.
They become primary.
I actually think this is closer to the source of the miscommunication. See I keep telling you guys that becoming secondary is irrelevant. The problem seems to be that you think the source of full BAB and 1.5 strength is becoming primary. But it isn't. The rule is a catch-all that entirely disregards primary or secondary status and cares onyl about the number of attacks. A single tail slap is still a secondary attack, but is still at full BAB. BUT, it isn't primary. That is how a creature with one natural attack and a sword could still have been said to have only one natural attack and still gain full BAB, except that any creature capable of wielding a sword is also capable of making unarmed strikes. (Barring some even more convoluted premise that I can't even fathom at this moment)
Also, perhaps a FAQ/errata flagged post would have been better. But I doubt it would have been answered. I wasn't thinking of it in those terms really. More along the lines of, next time you write a natural attack section, don't mess it up. I'm aware that most people got the right interpretation, myself included. But the popularity of an idea does not make it correct. And as I pointed out, a sentence of effectively equal length to the one in the book, but worded better, would alleviate any concerns. It mostly boils down to the writer knowing what they meant, and the reader knowing what was meant, but it not actually saying that. Really though, it wasn't anything to get upset about, just an interesting point to talk about.
What about a minotaur? They have one natural weapon, a gore attack. A gore is a primary natural weapon. If the minotaur isn't wielding another weapon, is your argument that said minotaur still doesn't get 1.5 STR on its gore attack? The minotaur after all could make an unarmed strike if it wanted to. Does the minotaur also not get 1.5 STR if it's merely holding its Greataxe, but never uses it??
I would say that yes. A minotaur is incapable of receiving 1.5 strength on a gore.
I actually think I hopefully figured where the ops hangup is.
They become primary.
I actually think this is closer to the source of the miscommunication. See I keep telling you guys that becoming secondary is irrelevant. The problem seems to be that you think the source of full BAB and 1.5 strength is becoming primary. But it isn't. The rule is a catch-all that entirely disregards primary or secondary status and cares onyl about the number of attacks. A single tail slap is still a secondary attack, but is still at full BAB. BUT, it isn't primary. That is how a creature with one natural attack and a sword could still have been said to have only one natural attack and still gain full BAB, except that any creature capable of wielding a sword is also capable of making unarmed strikes. (Barring some even more convoluted premise that I can't even fathom at this moment)
Also, perhaps a FAQ/errata flagged post would have been better. But I doubt it would have been answered. I wasn't thinking of it in those terms really. More along the lines of, next time you write a natural attack section, don't mess it up. I'm aware that most people got the right interpretation, myself included. But the popularity of an idea does not make it correct. And as I pointed out, a sentence of effectively equal length to the one in the book, but worded better, would alleviate any concerns. It mostly boils down to the writer knowing what they meant, and the reader knowing what was meant, but it not actually saying that. Really though, it wasn't anything to get upset about, just an interesting point to talk about.
What about a minotaur? They have one natural weapon, a gore attack. A gore is a primary natural weapon. If the minotaur isn't wielding another weapon, is your argument that said minotaur still doesn't get 1.5 STR on its gore attack?I would say that yes. A minotaur is incapable of receiving 1.5 strength on a gore.
But why? The minotaur still only has one natural attack and the rule specifically states that "If you possess only one natural attack (such as a bite—two claw attacks do not qualify), you add 1–1/2 times your Strength bonus on damage rolls made with that attack." The "multiple attacks" language is clearly from context referring to other natural attacks, not any other potential attacks from other sources. If they meant to include manufactured attacks in that discussion, they would have mentioned it specifically and also included all the rest of the relevant interaction rules along with it.
If your entire position was that this rule operates regardless of status as primary or secondary weapon, then 1. What does it matter if the minotaur wields other manufactured weapons? and, 2. Why would it matter that wielding manufactured weapons turns his gore into a secondary natural attack?
Primary/Secondary doesn't matter, per your statements. The rules state, explicitly, that if you have one natural attack, it benefits from the Full BAB/1.5 STR rule. So why does the minotaur's ability to make other non-natural attacks have any impact on that whatsoever by turning the gore into a secondary natural attack?
Also, please note that this is now completely contradictory to the post you made in creating this thread.
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.
(And this post is internally contradictory, anyway. If the attack bonus is "locked in", so too is the damage, since they'd be granted by the same rule.)
You also seem to be disagreeing with yourself here and here.
Again, any possible inconsistency boils down to which rule you think is the "specific" rule in the specific v. general analysis. That's where the disagreement could possibly occur. But we can't really have much of a productive discussion if we can't even agree on where the disagreement is. Whether a sole secondary weapon "becomes" a primary natural weapon doesn't ultimately matter. When you use a manufactured weapon along with a natural weapon, all natural weapons are treated like secondary ones. Your argument is that the 1.5 STR rule still takes priority (meaning it is the "more specific" of the two). However, if your argument is that the 1.5 STR rule still takes priority, then you'd have to say the minotaur ought to get 1.5 STR on its gore (even when making a manufactured attack too), since it is the only natural attack available.
To continue with your current line of thought however, you'd also have to believe that an animal companion with a single natural attack would no longer benefit from the 1.5 STR rule once it got Multiattack, which is demonstrably false.
And again, an unarmed strike is not a natural attack.
But why? The minotaur still only has one natural attack and the rule specifically states that "If you possess only one natural attack (such as a bite—two claw attacks do not qualify), you add 1–1/2 times your Strength bonus on damage rolls made with that attack." The "multiple attacks" language is clearly from context referring to other natural attacks, not any other potential attacks from other sources. If they meant to include manufactured attacks in that discussion, they would have mentioned it specifically and also included all the rest of the relevant interaction rules along with it.
If your entire position was that this rule operates regardless of status as primary or secondary weapon, then 1. What does it matter if the minotaur wields other manufactured weapons? and, 2. Why would it matter that wielding manufactured weapons turns his gore into a secondary natural attack?
You seem to be missing a big part of the discussion. There were consequences to allowing the phrase "has only one natural attack" apply to nonnatural attacks. Those consequences are alleviated by the existence of unarmed strikes and their ubiquitous necessity for anyone attempting to use manufactured weapons.
So the case of the minotaur (sounds like an awesome adventure) has nothing to do with manufactured weapons at all.
To continue with your current line of thought however, you'd also have to believe that an animal companion with a single natural attack would no longer benefit from the 1.5 STR rule once it got Multiattack, which is demonstrably false.
"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. "
Having multiple attacks from a single natural attack is not multiple natural attacks. Now who's trying to intentionally misread the rules? I'd say the confusion comes from them not being called natural weapons.
If you possess only one natural attack (such as a bite—two claw attacks do not qualify), you add 1–1/2 times your Strength bonus on damage rolls made with that attack.
Some natural attacks are denoted as secondary natural attacks, such as tails and wings. Attacks with secondary natural attacks are made using your base attack bonus minus 5. These attacks deal an amount of damage depending on their type, but you only add half your Strength modifier on damage rolls.
Most general rule: Primary Natural Attacks. This is what applies in most cases: use full BAB and add 1 x Strength modifier to damage.
Attacks made with natural weapons, such as claws and bites, are melee attacks that can be made against any creature within your reach (usually 5 feet). These attacks are made using your full attack bonus and deal an amount of damage that depends on their type (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). You do not receive additional natural attacks for a high base attack bonus. Instead, you receive additional attack rolls for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack (as noted by the race or ability that grants the attacks).
Then there are two more specific rules: Only One Natural Attack and Secondary Natural Attacks. In the first case, you use the general rule of using full BAB but replace adding 1 x Strength modifier to damage with adding 1.5 x Strength modifier to damage, since that is the more specific rule. In the second case, you ignore the general rules for both using full BAB and adding 1 x Strength modifier to damage, replacing them with the specific rules of using BAB - 5 and adding .5 x Strength modifier to damage.
You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack. For example, you cannot make a claw attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a longsword. When you make additional attacks in this way, all of your natural attacks are treated as secondary natural attacks, using your base attack bonus minus 5 and adding only 1/2 of your Strength modifier on damage rolls. Feats such as Two-Weapon Fighting and Multiattack can reduce these penalties.
Last, but not least, there's the most specific rule: Combining Natural Attacks with Melee Weapons/Unarmed Strikes. This rule applies whether your Natural Attacks are primary, secondary, or you have only one.
If your attack is primary, ignore the general rule of using full BAB and adding 1 x Strength modifier to damage and replace it with the more specific rule of using BAB - 5 and adding .5 x Strength modifier to damage.
If your attack is secondary, nothing changes, since the more general and more specific rules say to treat the attack the same, using BAB - 5 and adding .5 x Strength modifier to damage.
And in everyone's favorite example, if your natural attack is your only natural attack, you still must replace the more general rule of using full BAB and adding 1.5 x Strength modifier to damage with the more specific rule of using BAB -5 and adding .5 x Strength modifier to damage.
However, this last rule only applies when you make attacks in combination, not just when you can. Whether you are holding a shield or wearing gauntlets, if you don't make an attack with the shield or gauntlets, your only natural attack still follows its normal rules, using full BAB and adding 1.5 x Strength modifier to damage.
TLDR: Yes, your only natural attack becoming secondary is relevant. Yes, more specific rules trumping more general rules is relevant.
|
|
I think the solution here is to recognize that "secondary" has an implied affect on attack bonus and str bonus for natural attacks. Making something a "secondary" natural attack grants -5 to attack and half str bonus to dmg. However, by invoking "secondary" instead of stating the attack penalty and str bonus change directly it avoids stacking the attack penalty if the weapon was already a secondary attack. Meaning that a wing attack would not end up at a -10 bonus when used in combination with a manufactured weapon.
The design intent seems to, pretty clearly, be that natural weapons have a -5 attack penalty and half str bonus to dmg when used with manufactured weapons. The wording of the rules seems to be aimed at avoiding over-penalizing secondary natural attacks.
|
|
You seem to be missing a big part of the discussion. There were consequences to allowing the phrase "has only one natural attack" apply to nonnatural attacks. Those consequences are alleviated by the existence of unarmed strikes and their ubiquitous necessity for anyone attempting to use manufactured weapons.So the case of the minotaur (sounds like an awesome adventure) has nothing to do with manufactured weapons at all.
Well, sure, if the Minotaur only attacks with his gore attack (i.e. he's not carrying his greataxe, or if he chooses to not attack with his greataxe, for whatever reason) he gets full BAB to attack and 1.5 STR to his gore damage. Once he attacks with that greataxe, the gore attack becomes a secondary attack (BAB -5 to attack, .5 STR to damage).
This fact is so elementary,I'm having a difficult time understanding why you are having an issue with it. Do you think that the gore attack should still get 1.5 STR to damage, even though manufactured attacks are also being made?
To continue with your current line of thought however, you'd also have to believe that an animal companion with a single natural attack would no longer benefit from the 1.5 STR rule once it got Multiattack, which is demonstrably false."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. "
Having multiple attacks from a single natural attack is not multiple natural attacks. Now who's trying to intentionally misread the rules? I'd say the confusion comes from them not being called natural weapons.
I'm not entirely sure what you are talking about. A Dog animal companion (Druid level 10-11) has a bite attack of +12/+7 (1d6+7) with a STR of 21. The Shamrock was pointing out that your position that you've been using would mean that the Dog shouldn't get the 1.5 STR, which it clearly does.
Malkov,
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.All the necessary information regarding how the Full BAB 1.5 STR rule works is contained here, entirely within the confines of the section regarding Natural Attacks. They use the term "multiple attacks" because, in context, it is redundant to keep typing "multiple natural attacks". This is similar to how they don't repeatedly mention "Fighter Bonus Feats" in the "Bonus Feats" section of the Fighter class. Doing so wastes space because context is clear.
"Multiple attacks" refers specifically to available natural attacks. We know this because it comes directly after referencing creatures which have only one natural attack. It then clarifies that it does not mean creatures which have multiple iterations of one type of attack (e.g., hooves or claws).
The reason monsters don't make unarmed strikes in conjunction with their natural attacks is not because said creatures do not have unarmed strikes available. They do not make them because doing so is vastly, vastly inferior. They can either use their natural attacks (most of which are primary weapons using full BAB and at least full STR) and not make an unarmed strike, or they can make the unarmed strike (provoking an AoO for not having IUS and dealing a pittance for damage) and then make all their natural attacks but now as secondary natural weapons, meaning they all attack at BAB-5 and do at most .5 STR. Why would a creature give up its bite attack if it made an unarmed strike? That makes no sense.
What about a minotaur? They have one natural...
Minotaur is actually a great example here...
1. The minotaur only has one natural attack, a Gore. The full-attack stat for the Minotaur lists the Gore as a secondary attack, because it is also using a greataxe. Natural attack plus weapon attack means that the natural attack becomes secondary (-5 to hit, 1/2 str). So, even though it has only 'one natural attack', it does not get full BAB and 1-1/2 times strength. If the minotaur decided to only attack with the Gore, then it would indeed be a Primary Attack, getting full strength to damage, but it will never get 1-1/2 times strength (aside, of course, from powerful charge which is a separate ability)
2. When I am saying that some creatures would have to make unarmed strikes in place of natural attacks, I am talking about things like Elementals or a Giant Hippo or a Big Cat. These creatures do not have limbs with which to wield weapons, so to make an unarmed strike they would have to treat that unarmed strike like a manufactured weapon, and lose a natural attacking limb in order to make such an attack.
The minotaur has two attacks built in. It has a Gore, and it has arms. So at the worst, it could make a gore and an unarmed strike. Or it could wield a weapon and a gore. Either way, by default, the minotaur has more than just the one natural attack available to it. The is the same case with a PC Half-Orc that has the Toothy trait.
The capacity to wield a weapon ensures that you have an attack available to that limb or limbs without a weapon. Sometimes that is a claw (Tengu, werewolf) sometimes that is an unarmed strike (Human, minotaur, dwarf etc.) sometimes that is a tail slap (Kobold) and so on.
Other creatures do not have the anatomy or the extra limbs needed to wield weapons in addition to whatever natural attack they have. They just have the one. And these are the creatures that get to use full-BAB and get 1-1/2 str on their attack.
So, a Medium Elemental has one slam.... if you rule that it can wield weapons, that is fine because it will necessarily have to lose its one attack to do so.
A Hippo has just one bite.
An Axe Beak has just one Bite.
A Dire Boar has just one Gore.
A Triceratops has just one Gore.
A Stegosaurus has just one Tail Slap.
A Goblin Dog has just one Bite.
All of these stat blocks will show that these attacks are being made at full BAB and are getting 1-1/2 strength.
An Orc that takes a feat or a trait to get a bite attack DOES NOT have that bite as its only attack. Pretty straightforward logic there... could the Orc make an attack as a base creature if it did not have that bite? Yes. Okay then, that is not its only attack.
You seem to be missing a big part of the discussion. There were consequences to allowing the phrase "has only one natural attack" apply to nonnatural attacks. Those consequences are alleviated by the existence of unarmed strikes and their ubiquitous necessity for anyone attempting to use manufactured weapons.So the case of the minotaur (sounds like an awesome adventure) has nothing to do with manufactured weapons at all.
Well, sure, if the Minotaur only attacks with his gore attack (i.e. he's not carrying his greataxe, or if he chooses to not attack with his greataxe, for whatever reason) he gets full BAB to attack and 1.5 STR to his gore damage. Once he attacks with that greataxe, the gore attack becomes a secondary attack (BAB -5 to attack, .5 STR to damage).
This fact is so elementary,I'm having a difficult time understanding why you are having an issue with it. Do you think that the gore attack should still get 1.5 STR to damage, even though manufactured attacks are also being made?
Again, categorically wrong.
The Key phrase, again, is here: "This increase does not apply if the creature has multiple attacks but only takes one."
So, it really doesn't matter if the minotaur 'chooses' not to take its greataxe attack. There are several mechanics here and they are very different.
1. If the creature is question makes an attack with a manufactured weapon, its natural attacks are all secondary (-5 to hit, 1/2 str)
2. If the creature does not make an attack with a manufactured weapon, then its natural attacks revert to their initial categorization of primary or secondary.
3. If the creature has only one type of natural attack, then that attack is considered primary, otherwise refer to the chart.
4. If the creature has only one possible attack... just the one (and there are many examples of this) singular sole attack, then it gets 1-1/2 times strength.
So, a minotaur can attack with its greataxe, and make a secondary gore attack.
Or it can attack with just the Gore as a primary attack.
That does not mean that the minotaur doesn't have multiple attacks available to it.... it does.
And as for the Multiattack druid issue... yes, you do lose the 1-1/2 strength damage when you get multiattack. Evidence is found in the beastiary when a Medium Elemental (1 slam, full BAB, 1-1/2 str) is compared to a large elemental (2 slams, Primary attacks, 1x Str).
The rule for getting 1-1/2 str is very very restrictive. It needs to be your ONLY attack... so if you have the capacity to make another attack, even if that is an unarmed strike... you do not get 1-1/2 strength.
You're presuming that the "multiple attacks" language means something other than "multiple natural attacks". In my opinion, to come to that conclusion you have to remove context from the rules.
It appears in a section discussing natural attacks and natural attacks alone. Ergo, it is most reasonable to conclude that it is referencing natural attacks alone. That a creature could also make a manufactured attack at some point is irrelevant. What is relevant is solely the number of natural attacks available.