Regarding the multiattacking AC, it is distinct from a sized-up elemental. The elemental is not getting an iterative attack; it is getting a separate full BAB natural attack akin to a second claw attack. The circumstances are not analogous.
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.
I like how people arguing from opposing viewpoints are both saying I'm wrong.
So, I happened to be looking at eidolon's today and something told me I should read the section on natural attacks. It's basically the same as the monster rules, except for one deliberate hugely relevant detail
All natural attacks are made using the eidolon’s full base attack bonus unless otherwise noted (such as in the case of secondary attacks). Eidolon attacks add the eidolon’s Strength modifier to the damage roll, unless it is its only attack, in which case it adds 1-1/2 times its Strength modifier.
Natural attacks listed as primary are made using the eidolon’s full base attack bonus and add the eidolon’s Strength modifier on damage rolls. Natural attacks listed as secondary are made using the eidolon’s base attack bonus – 5 and add 1/2 the eidolon’s Strength modifier on damage rolls (if positive). If the eidolon only has a single natural attack, the attack is made using its full base attack bonus and it adds 1-1/2 times its Strength modifier on damage rolls made with that attack, regardless of the attack’s type.
Notice that it says eidolon attacks not natural attacks, though it is heavily implied, use 1.5 strength.
More importantly it explicitly states that a single natural attack uses full BAB and 1.5 strength regardless of type (does this imply that regular natural attacks follow different rules or that they thought it an opportunity to clarify?). So Misters FancyPants, how does that interact with manufactured weapons? You must accept the line of reasoning concerning unarmed strikes or revert back to my position in the OP (even if only for eidolons).
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...
If your premise is sound, then so is your conclusion as far as I can tell. But there's a problem with this chain of specifics. And that is the word always, as in, "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 sounds pretty specific. How does a rule override a rule that goes out of its way to say it is always in effect? The word always could have been left out entirely if your reasoning were correct. And this isn't a case of something later changing the norm. We're talking about sentences next to each other in the same section.
|
I like how people arguing from opposing viewpoints are both saying I'm wrong.So, I happened to be looking at eidolon's today and something told me I should read the section on natural attacks. It's basically the same as the monster rules, except for one deliberate hugely relevant detail
All natural attacks are made using the eidolon’s full base attack bonus unless otherwise noted (such as in the case of secondary attacks). Eidolon attacks add the eidolon’s Strength modifier to the damage roll, unless it is its only attack, in which case it adds 1-1/2 times its Strength modifier.
Natural attacks listed as primary are made using the eidolon’s full base attack bonus and add the eidolon’s Strength modifier on damage rolls. Natural attacks listed as secondary are made using the eidolon’s base attack bonus – 5 and add 1/2 the eidolon’s Strength modifier on damage rolls (if positive). If the eidolon only has a single natural attack, the attack is made using its full base attack bonus and it adds 1-1/2 times its Strength modifier on damage rolls made with that attack, regardless of the attack’s type.
Notice that it says eidolon attacks not natural attacks, though it is heavily implied, use 1.5 strength.
More importantly it explicitly states that a single natural attack uses full BAB and 1.5 strength regardless of type (does this imply that regular natural attacks follow different rules or that they thought it an opportunity to clarify?). So Misters FancyPants, how does that interact with manufactured weapons? You must accept the line of reasoning concerning unarmed strikes or revert back to my position in the OP (even if only for eidolons).
Yeah, sorry, you don't get to change the rules of English Grammar.
The "regardless of the attack's type" is in reference to the "single natural attack" mentioned earlier in that sentence. It doesn't say "regardless of the natural attack's type" because saying "natural" again would be redundant. It is NOT a reference for including manufactured attacks.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Mr. Fancy Pant's (The Shamrock) response to your post pretty much sums up what I would have to say. Suffice it to say that the "key" phrase that you're quoting is solely in reference to natural attacks. The reason why the phrase you're quoting doesn't again say "natural" attacks is because to do so would be redundant. It is already understood that the sentence is in reference to natural attacks, and to re-reference it would be unnecessary.
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.
I like how people arguing from opposing viewpoints are both saying I'm wrong.
So, I happened to be looking at eidolon's today and something told me I should read the section on natural attacks. It's basically the same as the monster rules, except for one deliberate hugely relevant detail
All natural attacks are made using the eidolon’s full base attack bonus unless otherwise noted (such as in the case of secondary attacks). Eidolon attacks add the eidolon’s Strength modifier to the damage roll, unless it is its only attack, in which case it adds 1-1/2 times its Strength modifier.
Natural attacks listed as primary are made using the eidolon’s full base attack bonus and add the eidolon’s Strength modifier on damage rolls. Natural attacks listed as secondary are made using the eidolon’s base attack bonus – 5 and add 1/2 the eidolon’s Strength modifier on damage rolls (if positive). If the eidolon only has a single natural attack, the attack is made using its full base attack bonus and it adds 1-1/2 times its Strength modifier on damage rolls made with that attack, regardless of the attack’s type.
Notice that it says eidolon attacks not natural attacks, though it is heavily implied, use 1.5 strength.
More importantly it explicitly states that a single natural attack uses full BAB and 1.5 strength regardless of type (does this imply that regular natural attacks follow different rules or that they thought it an opportunity to clarify?). So Misters FancyPants, how does that interact with manufactured weapons? You must accept the line of reasoning concerning unarmed strikes or revert back to my position in the OP (even if only for eidolons).
Mr. FancyPants? Really? How is that supposed to come across?
[WARNING: Long post. I'm going to walk through this because it seems necessary at this point.]
1. First, both opinions you've stated in this thread are incorrect. It also happens that both opinions you've stated are contradictory (though they are both incorrect for generally the same reason).
2. As I noted before, and as Hangar stated above, you're taking one part of one sentence woefully out of context. Your argument now turns to reading one use of the word "attack", without explicit immediate reference to "natural attack", to mean the rules say it's possible that if an eidolon has only one attack, and that attack could be any attack, it benefits from the Full BAB/1.5 STR rule.
However, you're not only ignoring that that lonesome appearance of the word "attack" happens not only in a section explicitly about natural attacks and only natural attacks, not only in a paragraph explicitly about natural attacks and only natural attacks, but also in a singular sentence about natural attacks and only natural attacks. And, that lonesome appearance of the word "attack" is not the only time in that same sentence that the word "attack" appears without explicit immediate reference to it referring to "natural attacks". In fact, it's the third such instance in that very same sentence.
That sentence you took the minor excerpt from cannot, in any way, be intelligently understood to mean anything other than that it is explicitly and uniformly referring to natural attacks and natural attacks alone. The introductory line of the sentence is "If the eidolon only has a single natural attack." That means, unequivocally, that every subsequent unqualified reference to an "attack" means the "single natural attack" referenced in the opening clause.
This, coincidentally, is the same exact mistake you make when referencing the "multiple attacks" issue in the more general section of the natural attack rule. At no point in that portion of the rule, like in no portion of this eidolon rule, is the rule even contemplating the interaction between natural and manufactured attacks. The only reference to that interaction is in a separate paragraph that specifically and explicitly describes how natural and manufactured attacks interact.
When you place undo emphasis on the word "always", this is precisely the mistake you are making. Yes, the rule says the one natural attack always benefits from the Full BAB/1.5 STR rule. That's in explicit reference to a discussion occurring purely about natural attacks alone. Whether the attack is ordinarily primary or secondary, if it is the only one it will always attack at Full BAB and 1.5 STR. It is in this same section that the "multiple" language occurs (with the same dropped "natural" modifier to "attack" for the same redundancy reasons discussed about). This section, at no point, contemplates manufactured weapons in the slightest. We know this because it never mentions them.
The only time the interaction between manufactured weapons and natural weapons is contemplated, the rules explicitly tell us the interaction is now relevant. They do so by specifically mentioning the both of them.
"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." This is a clear indicator that we are now (and at no time previously) talking about how manufactured and natural weapons interact. Also please note that unarmed strikes are here specifically called out, again driving home the point that previous mentions of multiple attacks were not contemplating unarmed strikes but solely other natural weapons.
Then, we are explicitly told what happens in the unique instance that manufactured and natural attacks do actually interact. "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." Note that it tells us when you attack with both manufactured and natural attacks, there is a specific way that all of your natural attacks are treated. Again, please note that it says all. This is equally as concrete and mandatory as your emphasis on "always". All of your natural attacks are treated as secondary. Not only does it tell us to treat them as secondary, but it explicitly tells us what it means by that; it explicitly and specifically tells us to have our natural weapons, all of our natural weapons, to attack at BAB-5 and to do .5 STR. All of the natural weapons. Every. Single. One.
So, there is one rule, which is only referencing natural attacks and never once mentions manufactured attacks, that uses the word "always". Then there is another rule that mentions a much more specific circumstance, one in which manufactured and natural attacks are used in concert. This rule pertaining to a more specific scenario says that "all" natural weapons are not only treated as secondary, but then explicitly describes the attack and strength bonuses applied to them.
You cannot rely on the emphaticness of the word "always" when the other rule in question contains an equally emphatic word in "all". You must resort to the specific/general dichotomy. Unquestionably, the manufactured/natural attack combination is more specific than the single natural attack rule. Ergo, the former takes priority.
If your argument is that a single natural attack with always and forever benefit from the Full BAB/1.5 STR rule (your first argument in this thread), you are incorrect because the only rule relating to how manufactured and natural weapons interact equivocally states something different.
If your argument is that a single natural attack from a creature that has the capacity to attack with manufactured weapon (whether it does or not) can never benefit from the Full BAB/1.5 STR rule (your second argument in this thread), you are incorrect because the section in which the "multiple attacks" upon which you are relying appears does not in any way contemplate how manufactured and natural weapons interact.
Is there any other argument you can present? Or is there any other evidence you can cite to support either of the arguments you've made thus far? At this point, neither of them are even remotely convincing.
If your premise is sound, then so is your conclusion as far as I can tell. But there's a problem with this chain of specifics. And that is the word always, as in, "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 sounds pretty specific. How does a rule override a rule that goes out of its way to say it is always in effect? The word always could have been left out entirely if your reasoning were correct. And this isn't a case of something later changing the norm. We're talking about sentences next to each other in the same section.
An avalanche can be spotted from as far away as 1d10 × 500 feet by a character who makes a DC 20 Perception check, treating the avalanche as a Colossal creature. If all characters fail their Perception checks to determine the encounter distance, the avalanche moves closer to them, and they automatically become aware of it when it closes to half the original distance. It's possible to hear an avalanche coming even if you can't see it. Under optimum conditions (no other loud noises occurring), a character who makes a DC 15 Perception check can hear the avalanche or landslide when it is 1d6 × 500 feet away. This check might have a DC of 20, 25, or higher in conditions where hearing is difficult (such as in the middle of a thunderstorm).
A landslide or avalanche consists of two distinct areas: the bury zone (in the direct path of the falling debris) and the slide zone (the area the debris spreads out to encompass). Characters in the bury zone always take damage from the avalanche; characters in the slide zone might be able to get out of the way. Characters in the bury zone take 8d6 points of damage, or half that amount if they make a DC 15 Reflex save. They are subsequently buried. Characters in the slide zone take 3d6 points of damage, or no damage if they make a DC 15 Reflex save. Those who fail their saves are buried.
Buried characters take 1d6 points of nonlethal damage per minute. If a buried character falls unconscious, he must make a DC 15 Constitution check or take 1d6 points of lethal damage each minute thereafter until freed or dead. See Cave-Ins and Collapses for rules on digging out buried creatures.
The typical avalanche has a width of 1d6 × 100 feet, from one edge of the slide zone to the opposite edge. The bury zone in the center of the avalanche is half as wide as the avalanche's full width.
To determine the precise location of characters in the path of an avalanche, roll 1d6 × 20; the result is the number of feet from the center of the path taken by the bury zone to the center of the party's location. Avalanches of snow and ice advance at a speed of 500 feet per round, while rock and soil avalanches travel at a speed of 250 feet per round.
Since a character in the bury zone always takes damage, what happens to a character with DR 50/- in the bury zone? Do the more specific rules for DR apply or does the usage of the world always trump everything? To be consistent with your argument about Natural Attacks, you'd have to say that the character takes damage in spite of DR. Not the way I'd rule, personally.
(And to be pedantic, if my premises are true and my argument is valid, then my argument is sound and my conclusion is true.)
This is ridiculous.
If a creature makes a manufactured attack, its natural attacks become secondary, yes?
If a creature has only one natural attack (according to you regardless of its other non-natural attacks) then it gets 1-1/2 strength and full BAB regardless of type. Yes?
So you are saying that all the stat blocks that do not conform to this are wrong. It doesn't matter that the attack becomes secondary, because it would still be the only natural attack and still get full BAB and 1-1/2 strength damage.
Interesting, isn't it, how neither of you can find one singular Stat block to support your claims. Not one. Not a single monster in the entire game conforms to your reading of the rules.
Amazing.
And the support for your argument is? What exactly? You want me to find a monster that has just unarmed strikes and a bite? That still doesn't get 1-1/2 strength....
Still has just one natural attack....
How are you missing the part where the creature doesn't gain the increase if it has multiple attacks but chooses to take just one? I mean, seriously? What is the argument on your end? When exactly does this bonus get applied? To a toothy Orc that chooses not to make an unarmed strike? Is that really the argument here?
Okay then, find me the stat block that supports that.
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.
Actually, looking at the description for the elemental subtype, it has information about elementals gaining weapon proficiencies if they are generally human-like in appearance. In that case, it would not be too unusual for them to be able to pull off an unarmed strike then, would it?
Also, from the description of unarmed strikes from the monk class (not entirely sure if it is universal for all with IUS...but I would tend to dip monk to get that anyway) says you can use knees and elbows, as well as hands and feet. Most of the monsters you listed had kness and feet at least.
Not sure why I am arguing this though... I have fairly much lost interest in the original topic, and I have begun to devolve into discussion about other, tangent issues we have brought up. The multiposting and walls of text have fairly well turned me off once we stopped making actual progress. As such, I bid fair well. Hope this actually goes somewhere.
I like how people arguing from opposing viewpoints are both saying I'm wrong.So, I happened to be looking at eidolon's today and something told me I should read the section on natural attacks. It's basically the same as the monster rules, except for one deliberate hugely relevant detail
All natural attacks are made using the eidolon’s full base attack bonus unless otherwise noted (such as in the case of secondary attacks). Eidolon attacks add the eidolon’s Strength modifier to the damage roll, unless it is its only attack, in which case it adds 1-1/2 times its Strength modifier.
Natural attacks listed as primary are made using the eidolon’s full base attack bonus and add the eidolon’s Strength modifier on damage rolls. Natural attacks listed as secondary are made using the eidolon’s base attack bonus – 5 and add 1/2 the eidolon’s Strength modifier on damage rolls (if positive). If the eidolon only has a single natural attack, the attack is made using its full base attack bonus and it adds 1-1/2 times its Strength modifier on damage rolls made with that attack, regardless of the attack’s type.
Notice that it says eidolon attacks not natural attacks, though it is heavily implied, use 1.5 strength.
More importantly it explicitly states that a single natural attack uses full BAB and 1.5 strength regardless of type (does this imply that regular natural attacks follow different rules or that they thought it an opportunity to clarify?). So Misters FancyPants, how does that interact with manufactured weapons? You must accept the line of reasoning concerning unarmed strikes or revert back to my position in the OP (even if only for eidolons).
Yeah, sorry, you don't get to change the rules of English Grammar.
The "regardless of the attack's type" is in reference to the "single natural attack" mentioned earlier in that sentence. It doesn't say "regardless of the natural attack's type" because saying "natural" again would be redundant....
You seem to be missing the forest for the trees or something. I wasn't talking about manufactured attacks. Regardless of.type means primary or secondary. But since using manufactured weapons makes the natural attack secondary (the basis of a lot of the discussion here) and eidolons EXPLICITLY don't care, what happens?
Also, I said Misters Fancy pants. I was addressing everyone.
|
Tentacles or tsil slaps are usually secondary but if you only have 1. They become primary.
But that's not what the rules say. All they say is the single attack benefits from Full-BAB and 1.5 Strength. That rule doesn't explicitly change or set the status of the attack as Primary or Secondary. THAT is the OP's issue with the RAW.
The RAW needs to be changed so that it actually says what we all "know" it means. Why is that so hard?
|
|
Tentacles or tsil slaps are usually secondary but if you only have 1. They become primary.But that's not what the rules say. All they say is the single attack benefits from Full-BAB and 1.5 Strength. That rule doesn't explicitly change or set the status of the attack as Primary or Secondary. THAT is the OP's issue with the RAW.
The RAW needs to be changed so that it actually says what we all "know" it means. Why is that so hard?
If that's all that it is, who the heck cares? If it's the only one and it gets full BAB/1.5 STR for that natural attack, who really cares if it's called a primary or a secondary. It's irrelevant and has absolutely no bearing on the game what-so-ever.
If that's all that it is, who the heck cares? If it's the only one and it gets full BAB/1.5 STR for that natural attack, who really cares if it's called a primary or a secondary. It's irrelevant and has absolutely no bearing on the game what-so-ever.Tentacles or tsil slaps are usually secondary but if you only have 1. They become primary.But that's not what the rules say. All they say is the single attack benefits from Full-BAB and 1.5 Strength. That rule doesn't explicitly change or set the status of the attack as Primary or Secondary. THAT is the OP's issue with the RAW.
The RAW needs to be changed so that it actually says what we all "know" it means. Why is that so hard?
This isn't some tribunal that handles important issues or anything. We're just people talking shop on the internet. Us here discussing it care to discuss it. If you don't, you're welcome to not discuss it. I don't even know why you'd bother posting that...
This is ridiculous.
If a creature makes a manufactured attack, its natural attacks become secondary, yes?
If a creature has only one natural attack (according to you regardless of its other non-natural attacks) then it gets 1-1/2 strength and full BAB regardless of type. Yes?
So you are saying that all the stat blocks that do not conform to this are wrong. It doesn't matter that the attack becomes secondary, because it would still be the only natural attack and still get full BAB and 1-1/2 strength damage.
Interesting, isn't it, how neither of you can find one singular Stat block to support your claims. Not one. Not a single monster in the entire game conforms to your reading of the rules.
Amazing.
And the support for your argument is? What exactly? You want me to find a monster that has just unarmed strikes and a bite? That still doesn't get 1-1/2 strength....
Still has just one natural attack....
How are you missing the part where the creature doesn't gain the increase if it has multiple attacks but chooses to take just one? I mean, seriously? What is the argument on your end? When exactly does this bonus get applied? To a toothy Orc that chooses not to make an unarmed strike? Is that really the argument here?
Okay then, find me the stat block that supports that.
Why is the minotaur written with its gore attack getting BAB-5 and .5 STR? Is it because the minotaur's gore attack always gets BAB-5 and .5 STR or is it because, since the minotaur has an available manufactured weapon attack, the block assumes attacks are generally going to come from the manufactured attack (since it is generally superior to the gore attack), meaning the times when the gore attack is going to be used are typically in full attacks when combined with manufactured weapons?
That a creature can make an unarmed strike is irrelevant, because any creature could make an unarmed strike. If that were a limiting factor, the Full BAB/1.5 STR rule would literally never apply.
You've also never addressed why it makes sense to read manufactured weapons into a section that never once contemplates manufactured weapons (where we find the "multiple attacks" language).
The bonus gets applies when the creature has only one natural attack available and does not combine that natural attack with any manufactured attacks. Combining with manufactured attacks makes the natural attack behave like a secondary natural weapon, regardless of solitude. So only when a single attack is made with the solitary available natural weapon. If any other natural weapon is available, then the rule doesn't apply because it's not a lone natural attack. If it is combined with a manufactured weapon or unarmed strike, the natural attack uses secondary natural weapon rules. If the creature has a manufactured weapon or unarmed strike available, but does not use it, meaning the sole natural weapon is the only weapon attacking, then the rule applies.
The only caveat to this is the single natural weapon animal companion when it gets mutliattack. They get actual iterative attacks with their single natural weapon and all those attacks benefit from the 1.5 STR rule (which is borne out in the stat blocks provided in the NPC Codex), despite the fact that there are technically multiple attacks being made.
Here's another example written like the minotaur: morlock. Notice how the attack block is written, treating the bite as a secondary natural weapon, even though we know bites are typically primary. However, that's obviously not going to convince you. If all you need is a solitary example, take a gander at the mongrelman. Notice how this particular stat block is written with an "or" (likely because it it two-handing the club for the 1.5 STR to damage). However, the second attack, the natural slam attack, is written showing that it benefits from the 1.5 STR rule.
You wanted one singular stat block to support the claim. There you go. Hopefully we can stop this now.
This is ridiculous.
If a creature makes a manufactured attack, its natural attacks become secondary, yes?
If a creature has only one natural attack (according to you regardless of its other non-natural attacks) then it gets 1-1/2 strength and full BAB regardless of type. Yes?
So you are saying that all the stat blocks that do not conform to this are wrong. It doesn't matter that the attack becomes secondary, because it would still be the only natural attack and still get full BAB and 1-1/2 strength damage.
Interesting, isn't it, how neither of you can find one singular Stat block to support your claims. Not one. Not a single monster in the entire game conforms to your reading of the rules.
Amazing.
And the support for your argument is? What exactly? You want me to find a monster that has just unarmed strikes and a bite? That still doesn't get 1-1/2 strength....
Still has just one natural attack....
How are you missing the part where the creature doesn't gain the increase if it has multiple attacks but chooses to take just one? I mean, seriously? What is the argument on your end? When exactly does this bonus get applied? To a toothy Orc that chooses not to make an unarmed strike? Is that really the argument here?
Okay then, find me the stat block that supports that.
Why is the minotaur written with its gore attack getting BAB-5 and .5 STR? Is it because the minotaur's gore attack always gets BAB-5 and .5 STR or is it because, since the minotaur has an available manufactured weapon attack, the block assumes attacks are generally going to come from the manufactured attack (since it is generally superior to the gore attack), meaning the times when the gore attack is going to be used are typically in full attacks when combined with manufactured weapons?
That a creature can make an unarmed strike is irrelevant, because any creature could make an unarmed strike. If that were a limiting factor, the Full BAB/1.5 STR rule would...
You're still not getting that it has to be one of the things or the other.
Either multiple attacks includes non natural ones (unarmed strikes, manufactured) or it's relegation to secondary (especially for eidolons) is irrelevant and it continues to deal 1.5 str at full BAB in conjunction with manufactured weapons.
Also, there is no reason to believe every creature is entitled to make unarmed strikes, that I'm aware of.
IUS (which just about every creature can take) does not grant you UAS attacks, it just makes them threaten and deal lethal damage.
Creatures with natural weapons will always prefer to use those over UAS, which is why you don't see published examples of them having IUS.
Unarmed strikes are granted by physiology. Not all creatures have the physiology necessary. Sometimes you don't see published examples of creatures with unarmed strikes because they don't have one.
You're still not getting that it has to be one of the things or the other.
Either multiple attacks includes non natural ones (unarmed strikes, manufactured) or it's relegation to secondary (especially for eidolons) is irrelevant and it continues to deal 1.5 str at full BAB in conjunction with manufactured weapons.
Also, there is no reason to believe every creature is entitled to make unarmed strikes, that I'm aware of.
No, I do get it. Your point is that it has to be one or the other. My point is that you are wrong. It does not have to be one or the other because it is neither.
"Multiple attacks" does not include nonnatural attacks. Additionally, the Manufactured/Natural Weapon interaction rule takes priority over the Full BAB/1.5 STR rule. That's the point. It's not one or the other of your options because both are incorrect, which is what I described above.
You're still not getting that it has to be one of the things or the other.
Either multiple attacks includes non natural ones (unarmed strikes, manufactured) or it's relegation to secondary (especially for eidolons) is irrelevant and it continues to deal 1.5 str at full BAB in conjunction with manufactured weapons.
Also, there is no reason to believe every creature is entitled to make unarmed strikes, that I'm aware of.
No, I do get it. Your point is that it has to be one or the other. My point is that you are wrong. It does not have to be one or the other because it is neither.
"Multiple attacks" does not include nonnatural attacks. Additionally, the Manufactured/Natural Weapon interaction rule takes priority over the Full BAB/1.5 STR rule. That's the point. It's not one or the other of your options because both are incorrect, which is what I described above.
And how do you account for eidolons?
Not true, the description of unarmed strikes for monks should not be considered exclusive to monks. (I'm far too lazy to dig up this reference though)
Essentially, the body is the weapon, and pretty much any part of the body that could make a qualifying attack (such as a head butt or kick) can make an UAS.
UAS does not get listed in stat blocks where it would provoke AoOs, not because it's unavailable.
"Some creatures do not have natural attacks. These creatures can make unarmed strikes just like humans do."
You'll notice even oozes get slam attacks. There is no reason to think that a gelatinous cube can make an unarmed strike. It does not have fists, elbows, knees, or feet. Or even a head.
I really don't see any reason why it can't strike you though. It has mass, and it can move it's mass.
And how do you account for eidolons?You're still not getting that it has to be one of the things or the other.
Either multiple attacks includes non natural ones (unarmed strikes, manufactured) or it's relegation to secondary (especially for eidolons) is irrelevant and it continues to deal 1.5 str at full BAB in conjunction with manufactured weapons.
Also, there is no reason to believe every creature is entitled to make unarmed strikes, that I'm aware of.
No, I do get it. Your point is that it has to be one or the other. My point is that you are wrong. It does not have to be one or the other because it is neither.
"Multiple attacks" does not include nonnatural attacks. Additionally, the Manufactured/Natural Weapon interaction rule takes priority over the Full BAB/1.5 STR rule. That's the point. It's not one or the other of your options because both are incorrect, which is what I described above.
What do you mean how do I account for eidolons? They're not different in this regard.
I had some time to kill, so I checked out the bestiaries to see if I could find a particularly enlightening example (beyond the Mongrelman I mentioned above).
It was actually not easy, but because my criteria were specific. I wanted to find a monster which had a stat block including only a single natural attack, but which would be capable of making a manufactured attack, and which had a strength bonus high enough to demonstrate the use of the Full BAB/1.5 STR rule. Because most relevant monsters either have multiple natural attacks or the stat blocks include manufactured attacks (thus stating their primary natural attacks as secondary) it took a little bit.
But, I did find a perfect example.
This creature has the upper body of a woman and the lower body of a bee. She wields a longbow with uncanny skill.
LN Medium monstrous humanoid
OFFENSE
Speed 30 ft., fly 60 ft. (good)
Melee sting +10 (1d8+7 plus poison)
Ranged composite longbow +8 (1d8+5/×3 plus poison) or Rapid Shot +6/+6 (1d8+5/×3 plus poison)
STATISTICS
Str 20, Dex 17, Con 16, Int 12, Wis 13, Cha 15
I've included all the necessary information. As you can see, the sole attack stated for the monster is a single natural attack: a sting. A sting is ordinarily a primary natural weapon. With a strength score of 20, the damage indicated in the stat block is clearly using the 1.5 STR rule (+5 modifier times 1.5 rounded down).
The most important piece of information in all of this is the fact that the creature is a monstrous humanoid. As you can tell from the PRD, monstrous humanoids are "proficient with all simple weapons and any weapons mentioned in its entry." This means that the Thriae Soldier is proficient with unarmed strikes and could make one at any time. And yet, the Thriae Soldier still benefits from the Full BAB/1.5 STR rule.
Furthermore, here is the relevant information for the Thriae Queen.
LN Huge monstrous humanoid
OFFENSE
Melee +2 axiomatic light mace +35/+30/+25/+20 (2d6+11/19–20), sting +27 (2d8+4/19–20 plus poison)
STATISTICS
Str 28, Dex 11, Con 25, Int 20, Wis 21, Cha 28
Now the creature is stated out with both a manufactured weapon as well as that same, sole natural attack. Please take note that now when combined with a manufactured weapon, the sting attack (ordinarily a primary natural attack) now only does .5 STR damage (+4 rather than +12 for 1.5 STR).
Davick, these two examples together contradict your assertion that how this works must be either your first or your second interpretation. As you can see, here is official material which demonstrates that both those interpretations are incorrect.
And Malkov, the first example is another stat block (and this one explicitly so) which contradicts your assertion that "multiple attacks" is meant to include even the mere ability to make an unarmed strikes to mean a creature cannot benefit from the Full BAB/1.5 STR rule.
What do you mean how do I account for eidolons? They're not different in this regard.And how do you account for eidolons?You're still not getting that it has to be one of the things or the other.
Either multiple attacks includes non natural ones (unarmed strikes, manufactured) or it's relegation to secondary (especially for eidolons) is irrelevant and it continues to deal 1.5 str at full BAB in conjunction with manufactured weapons.
Also, there is no reason to believe every creature is entitled to make unarmed strikes, that I'm aware of.
No, I do get it. Your point is that it has to be one or the other. My point is that you are wrong. It does not have to be one or the other because it is neither.
"Multiple attacks" does not include nonnatural attacks. Additionally, the Manufactured/Natural Weapon interaction rule takes priority over the Full BAB/1.5 STR rule. That's the point. It's not one or the other of your options because both are incorrect, which is what I described above.
Except that an eidolon with only one natural attack (disregarding manufactured attacks) uses full BAB and 1.5 strength regardless of type (primary or secondary) even with a manufactured weapon.
Is what I was going to say. But I'm now pretty sure type does not refer to category.
But, you can still treat all natural attacks as secondary and always have a single one deal 1.5 strength.
Are you making an attack with a manufactured weapon and a natural attack?
Yes.
Did all of your natural attacks become secondary?
Yes.
Do you have only one natural attack?
Yes.
Does a single natural attack deal 1.5x strength regardless of being secondary?
Yes.
Just because the bit about manufactured weapons comes later doesn't mean the "only one" rule invalid to every thing after. It specifically deals with having only one natural attack more specifically than anything else. You can check the status of whether or not a natural attack is the only one after you've made it secondary due to use with a manufactured weapon. So you can specifically have a secondary natural attack that still specifically deals 1.5x strength. Imagine if every natural attack had a switch on it that went from primary to secondary. If you only have one natural attack, that switch is broken. You almost sound like you're just arguing the order of operations, which still wouldn't matter, or at least self determining which rule is more specific and "takes priority".
EDIT: Stat blocks are also capable of contradicting the rules. If the point is that the rule is misapplied what is its misapplication evidence of?
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Except that an eidolon with only one natural attack (disregarding manufactured attacks) uses full BAB and 1.5 strength regardless of type (primary or secondary) even with a manufactured weapon.
Eidolon's are a class feature and able to break natural weapon rules.
Same as 9th level Druid's Multiattack which allows a second attack on one that only has one.
Both break rules. They are not to be used as general rules.
Except that an eidolon with only one natural attack (disregarding manufactured attacks) uses full BAB and 1.5 strength regardless of type (primary or secondary) even with a manufactured weapon.
Eidolon's are a class feature and able to break natural weapon rules.
Same as 9th level Druid's Multiattack which allows a second attack on one that only has one.
Both break rules. They are not to be used as general rules.
Which was not what I was saying at all. But irrelevant as I dismissed it anyway.
Just because the bit about manufactured weapons comes later doesn't mean the "only one" rule invalid to every thing after. It specifically deals with having only one natural attack more specifically than anything else. You can check the status of whether or not a natural attack is the only one after you've made it secondary due to use with a manufactured weapon. So you can specifically have a secondary natural attack that still specifically deals 1.5x strength. Imagine if every natural attack had a switch on it that went from primary to secondary. If you only have one natural attack, that switch is broken. You almost sound like you're just arguing the order of operations, which still wouldn't matter, or at least self determining which rule is more specific and "takes priority".
As I've said, the disagreement is the order and priority. And yes, it essentially is an order of operations thing. What matters is which rule has priority, because that's the one that gives the final result.
If the "Only one natural attack" rule has priority, then it should not matter that the natural attack is treated as a secondary natural weapon (and it would ignore how it then explicitly tells us to treat natural weapons used in conjunction with manufactured weapons).
Or, the manufactured/natural combination rule has priority, in which case the single natural weapon follows the BAB-5/.5 STR rule, despite the other rule.
One of the rules has to take priority, since they are contradictory. Ordinarily, such contradictions are determined by specificity. The more specific rule takes priority. I am saying the combination rule is more specific. You are saying the one attack rule is more specific.
So, if we can't decide we should look to how the developers treat these situations when they crop up. This leads me to
EDIT: Stat blocks are also capable of contradicting the rules. If the point is that the rule is misapplied what is its misapplication evidence of?
Yes, stat blocks can be mistaken from time to time. Monsters can sometimes contradict rules for PCs. The manufactured/natural weapon combination rule isn't just a PC rule. Regardless, the more important thing here is that we're not talking about an isolated NPC or Monster stat block. Literally every single stat block in any of the bestiaries that has a monster combining a single natural attack with a manufactured attack shows that single natural attack as being made at BAB-5 and .5 STR. Every single one. This isn't an isolated incident. It is absolutely clear that the developers unequivocally intend the rules to function the same way I have described, that the manufactured/natural weapon combination rule takes priority over the one natural weapon rule.
If a natural attack, any natural attack (whether the only natural attack or one of many), is used in combination with any manufactured weapon, that natural attack not only is treated as secondary, but it specifically uses BAB-5 and .5 STR. This is how the rules language implies it should be used (specificity v. generality - combination attacks are a more specific circumstance than only having one natural attack). More importantly, this is how the developers have applied the rules in every published example we have available.
|
|
Except that an eidolon with only one natural attack (disregarding manufactured attacks) uses full BAB and 1.5 strength regardless of type (primary or secondary) even with a manufactured weapon.
No. Eidolons are not exempt from the rules that say that natural attacks become secondary attacks when combined with manufactured attacks.
I had some time to kill, so I checked out the bestiaries to see if I could find a particularly enlightening example (beyond the Mongrelman I mentioned above).
It was actually not easy, but because my criteria were specific. I wanted to find a monster which had a stat block including only a single natural attack, but which would be capable of making a manufactured attack, and which had a strength bonus high enough to demonstrate the use of the Full BAB/1.5 STR rule. Because most relevant monsters either have multiple natural attacks or the stat blocks include manufactured attacks (thus stating their primary natural attacks as secondary) it took a little bit.
But, I did find a perfect example.
This creature has the upper body of a woman and the lower body of a bee. She wields a longbow with uncanny skill.
LN Medium monstrous humanoid
OFFENSE
Speed 30 ft., fly 60 ft. (good)
Melee sting +10 (1d8+7 plus poison)
Ranged composite longbow +8 (1d8+5/×3 plus poison) or Rapid Shot +6/+6 (1d8+5/×3 plus poison)
STATISTICS
Str 20, Dex 17, Con 16, Int 12, Wis 13, Cha 15I've included all the necessary information. As you can see, the sole attack stated for the monster is a single natural attack: a sting. A sting is ordinarily a primary natural weapon. With a strength score of 20, the damage indicated in the stat block is clearly using the 1.5 STR rule (+5 modifier times 1.5 rounded down).
The most important piece of information in all of this is the fact that the creature is a monstrous humanoid. As you can tell from the PRD, monstrous humanoids are "proficient with all simple weapons and any weapons mentioned in its entry." This means that the Thriae Soldier is proficient with unarmed strikes and could make one at any time. And yet, the Thriae Soldier still benefits from the Full...
Interesting stuff... convenient of you to just skip over the Thriae Seer...
Really interesting.... because these stat blocks are actually showing a very odd thing. The Thriae Seer is ALSO getting 1-1/2 strength damage with its sting while it makes quarterstaff attacks.
So either we are both wrong, and the Minotaur entry is incorrect, and so are a ton of others... or the Stat blocks here are wrong...
Actually there is no reason that I can gather why the Thriae Seer would be getting 1-1/2 str on its sting... of course its also getting a -5 to hit, soooooo...... yeah, not sure what is going on there, but it shows that these flawed stat blocks might not be the best examples.
POINT 2.
This thing about unarmed strikes... you are really not getting it, and I am not sure why.
Are you genuinely asserting that any creature can make unarmed strikes in addition to their natural attacks when they only have natural attacks listed?
I can see the argument for making an unarmed strike [in place of... but in addition to? No sir. Even 'in place of' doesn't have a whole lot of mechanical footing, but in addition? So there are all these creatures that are just not taking their extra attacks each round?
Because what I am saying is right in line with RAW. An unarmed strike acts in many ways like a manufactured weapon (though it isn't one) in that it makes attacks iteratively from high BAB and can downgrade natural attack to secondary attacks. With me?
Okay, so when you attack with a weapon that isn't your natural attack, you lose a natural attack, right? That is right there in the natural attack rules. Now usually this means that you are doing what your own example creature, the Mongrelman, is doing... you are using the limb/limbs needed to make a natural attack in order to wield a weapon. If it chose to do so, however, it could probably make an unarmed strike in place of its slame. The mongrelman in this case does not have the ability to make both a slam and an unarmed strike in the same turn. If you believe that it can, then we are just way too far apart and you are reading a different rulebook than I am.
If you have followed me this far, then please just listen for a moment to the argument I am making. What I am saying is that the capacity to make an attack other than your sole natural attack, in addition to your natural attack, voids the full BAB and 1-1/2 strength upgrade. That is it.
This all comes down to a reading of what it means when it says, "If you only have one natural attack", and what it means when it says "if you have multiple attacks but choose to take only one".
I though this was pretty clear, but obviously we are reading it differently.
Your reading says that "only one natural attack" means only one natural attack, disregarding other attacks.
My reading says that "only on natural attack" Means only one natural attack including other attacks.
Your reading says that this increase does not apply if the creature has multiple natural attacks but chooses to take only one.
My reading says that this increase does not apply if the creature has multiple attacks of ANY kind but chooses to take only one.
Finally, the only thing to clear up here is the idea that the secondary determination somehow overrides the full-BAB/1-1/2 str rule. I am not sure how that comes out that way TBH. In my reading it is obvious. In yours I am not sure exactly how it happens.
So, the order, for you, is
1. Determine if the attack is primary or secondary
2. Apply full-BAB/1-1/2 modification when appropriate
3. Turn the attack back into a secondary attack?
Mine is:
1. Determine if the attack is primary or secondary
2. Apply full-BAB/1-1/2 modification when appropriate
there is no step three because that conflict cannot arise in my reading of the rules.
Now... that is not too say that you are wrong. I am not saying that. There is room for interpretation here, and I don't want to say that I am 100% correct by Raw or that you are 100% wrong... or really that either of us is 100% anything. But I would like to know that you at least see where I am coming from. I think I see where you are coming from.
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.
A mongrelman can attack with a club in one hand and still make its slam attack. The way they have it in the stat block though is that it's wielding the club in two hands, so it can't make the slam attack at the same time.
A minotaur has the following attack combination options: a gore attack at Full BAB and 1.5 STR; a manufactured weapon attack; or, a manufactured weapon attack and a gore attack at BAB-5 and .5 STR. The latter is reflected in the stat block because it is the most likely scenario for a full attack action. And chances are a single attack would be made with just the manufactured weapon, since it'd be far superior to the gore (excepting the powerful charge option).
The Seer entry has to be in error. It should be 1d8+1. I actually didn't even look at that one before. Interesting they made a mistake on it, though.
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.
Unarmed strikes absolutely can be made in addition to natural weapon attacks. You just have to use different limbs. Monstrous Humanoids are proficient with all simple weapons and unarmed strikes are simple weapons. Therefore, Monstrous Humanoids are able to make unarmed strikes, just like every human, orc, drow, whatever can make unarmed strikes, even though the Bestiary doesn't list unarmed strikes in any of those stat blocks.
The reason you don't see creatures with natural attacks making unarmed strikes in addition to their natural attacks, even though they could, is because doing so would not only greatly reduce the effectiveness of their natural weapons (reducing their attack bonus by -5 and reducing the damage to at most .5 STR), but unarmed strikes do minimal damage and provoke attacks of opportunity if you do not have IUS. It is massively suboptimal for creatures with natural weapons to combine them with unarmed strikes.
The reason many monsters include manufactured weapons is because the manufactured weapon is likely going to be better than the natural weapon. Plus, a manufactured weapon plus even a reduced in effectiveness natural weapon is better (most of the time) than just a natural weapon.
I recognize the interpretation you're making here. I simply think it's incorrect because I believe you're taking the "multiple attacks" language out of context. I believe context limits it too a discussion of natural attacks only because at no other point in the immediate area is anything other than natural weapons being discussed. Manufactured weapons don't make their first appearance until later and it would be very bad drafting to refer to something that had yet to be mentioned with such general language.
My reading is that if the creature has only one natural attack and that is the only attack it makes, it benefits from the rule. If the creature has multiple natural attacks, it does not benefit from the rule ever, whether it attacks with one or multiple natural attacks.
On the Thriae Seer, the mistake on its sting attack was noted in the errata thread. I don't think the Bestiary 3 errata has come out yet. I'm betting it will be fixed when the errata is released. That was a good catch though.
Its hard to say that the mongrelman could make both a slam and a 1-handed club attack. Generally speaking, you lose a natural attack if you wield a weapon in that limb.... now what limb is being used for a slam? Umm... not sure. Frankly its the most vague type of attack.
An elemental could not really have limbs at all but still make a slam. If it were my game, I would say that you would get to pick either or, just like the mongrelman. There is no RAW here to support either really since we can't say what is being used to make a slam attack... we know arms are involved somehow, but whether it takes one or both or a full body sort of movement is hard to determine.
But in any case, I would rule that way because otherwise an elemental shaped druid could make full manufactured attacks plus all of their slams, and probably more dangerous, a vampire would be able to make full weapon attacks plus a slam with drain.
Now I may indeed be taking multiple attacks out of context, but the counter-argument would be that you are inferring that the same phrase is referring only to natural attacks, which it does not explicitly state. So both are possible interpretations with fairly solid ground to stand on.
In any case, this is a very odd set of circumstances and definitely qualifies as an edge case. If the creature has just the one attack, and it is only using that attack, then the difference in viewpoints is full-str or 1.5-str, which probably won't shake the roots of the world if ruled in either direction. But I hold to my reading of the text as I am sure you will hold to yours.