Underhanded - Natural weapons

[SillyString]

Can the underhanded rogue talent ever interact with natural claw attacks?

If I am concealed, are my natural weapons considered concealed? I can't seem to find anything specific in the RAW...

edit: found a thread marked as "no reply required" after it was FAQd, in which the responses to wether or not unarmed strikes could be concealed for the purpose of the feat was yes and they didn't req an action to become not concealed. Do you think that means that A) the developers allow it for unarmed strikes and/or B) that that extends to natural weapons?

[Weirdo]

Rules for concealing weapons refer to objects, and claws are not objects, so generally no.

I personally would let you use the rules for concealing weapons to conceal claws (with gloves, handwraps, or the like), but at a penalty because they are stuck to an obvious place - your hands. And I might use your Disguise modifier instead of Sleight of Hand (with the effect of the check working as SoH).

[SillyString]

Weirdo wrote:

Rules for concealing weapons refer to objects, and claws are not objects, so generally no.

I personally would let you use the rules for concealing weapons to conceal claws (with gloves, handwraps, or the like), but at a penalty because they are stuck to an obvious place - your hands. And I might use your Disguise modifier instead of Sleight of Hand (with the effect of the check working as SoH).

What do you think about the idea of " I am concealed (stealthed) therefore my claws are concealed" ?

[Weirdo]

No, that's clearly not the intent of the talent. Concealed weapons are a specific mechanic.

[zeroiris]

My group sees the intent for this talent as a) the target sees you, does not consider you hostile, and does realize that you are armed (this works with the Betrayer feat as well) or b) the target does not see you (until it is too late)

I do not see a problem with having your weapons be considered concealed as long as you are.

[Quintain]

I don't see why "concealed weapons" couldn't apply to natural weapons. Hiding your hands behind your back that have claws and hiding your dagger behind your back is largely the same thing.

You might want to apply a penalty due to the nature of the natural weapons that are being hidden, however.

[SillyString]

Quintain wrote:

I don't see why "concealed weapons" couldn't apply to natural weapons. Hiding your hands behind your back that have claws and hiding your dagger behind your back is largely the same thing.

You might want to apply a penalty due to the nature of the natural weapons that are being hidden, however.

Yeah, I believe the rules would permit for sleight of hand checks to conceal your hands, provided they don't know you have claws, considering the claws are treated as light weapons and soh specifically mentions light weapons in its description, coupled with the fact it mentions bonuses for wearing baggy cloaks / robes to cover the weapons.

I've decided until proper clarification that I shall ignore this talent though, as it's a pretty powerful (cough, cheap, cough) bonus in a very grey area. Not worth the controversy it could cause without an official response.

Ps, this mainly goes for the "I am concealed therefore my weapon is" idea due to stealth and soh being separate mechanics.

All in all I think this talent ( given its inherent power ) could use being being beaten with the errata stick...

[Weirdo]

"You can hide a small object (including a light weapon...)" Claws and other natural weapons are certainly considered light weapons, but not objects, so I don't think by strict RAW SoH can be used to conceal them. (Allowing light weapons that are not objects to be concealed should be phrased as "hide a small object or light weapon.")

That said, such a strict RAW interpretation can cause problems because the devs aren't technical writers so they're not always precise about their phrasing and just because they didn't anticipate using SoH with natural weapons doesn't mean it shouldn't be used.

Quintain wrote:

I don't see why "concealed weapons" couldn't apply to natural weapons. Hiding your hands behind your back that have claws and hiding your dagger behind your back is largely the same thing.

You might want to apply a penalty due to the nature of the natural weapons that are being hidden, however.

Given that it takes longer to draw a concealed weapon, I think it's less hiding the weapon behind your back and more sticking it in your boot, or in the back of your belt with a cloak over it. With this in mind it makes sense to refer to "objects" which can be concealed in an out of the way place, as opposed to "body parts" (the concealment of which is usually covered by Disguise). Still, I agree that tucking your hands into your cloak or wearing gloves (or a scarf over a bite, etc) ought to function similarly with a small penalty.

zeroiris wrote:

My group sees the intent for this talent as a) the target sees you, does not consider you hostile, and does realize that you are armed (this works with the Betrayer feat as well) or b) the target does not see you (until it is too late)

I do not see a problem with having your weapons be considered concealed as long as you are.

I don't see any particular problem with this ruling, I just do not think it is the intent of the talent, because of the reference to Sleight of Hand and because your interpretation would more clearly be conveyed by "if she makes a sneak attack during the surprise round on an opponent who has not identified her as an armed enemy" instead of "if she makes a sneak attack during the surprise round using a concealed weapon that her opponent didn’t know about." (This is a more obvious difference than "including " vs "or" above, so I think it's less likely to be an oversight.)

[CAHaugen]

Quintain wrote:

I don't see why "concealed weapons" couldn't apply to natural weapons. Hiding your hands behind your back that have claws and hiding your dagger behind your back is largely the same thing.

You might want to apply a penalty due to the nature of the natural weapons that are being hidden, however.

Weirdo wrote:

I agree that tucking your hands into your cloak or wearing gloves (or a scarf over a bite, etc) ought to function similarly with a small penalty.

I just read this because our party has recently added in a Catfolk Rogue who wants to use her claws (She took Catfolk Exemplar: Sharp Claws) and we were discussing whether or not her Claws can be concealed. Since it's still a rather general topic without a real answer, might I suggest an alternative?

I know the game is largely based upon fantasy, though elements of realism do exist. I'm sure people have watched the show The Walking Dead. In Season 3 (Though I could be wrong), Rick is at odds with the bikers whom are attempting to r*** his son and kill him. Rick is held captive by their leader and is taunting him. Rick's solution is to bite at the man's throat.

Now, if we flow this into game mechanics. what would have been happening is that the man holding Rick would have been using Grapple. Since he was also Intimidating him, we can theorize he would have been able to use Greater Grapple to secure him as a Move Action, allowing him the Standard Action of Intimidate. Rick would have used Sense Motive, and would have succeeded (Most likely due to a Morale Bonus due to watching his son become Helpless).

Now we ask the question; Are Natural Attacks able to be "Concealed"?

When Rick bit the man's throat to kill him, the issue isn't whether or not he "concealed" his "natural weapon", rather whether or not he "concealed" his "intentions". This is not a Sleight of Hand or Disguise Check. It's a Bluff Check.

Rick essentially used Sneak Attack + Bite + Bleeding Attack. While I'm not entirely sure if you are allowed to use Sneak Attack upon someone who is Grappling you, mechanically you should be allowed since you can make a single attack. If your opponent is being Flanked or is Flat-Footed, you should be allowed. In this case while neither were truly the case, that's just a topic for future discussion.

So the point here is that we have a "real"-life element of combining these two instances. Sneak Attack and Natural Weapons.

It is because of this example, I would feel far more comfortable with making it a Bluff Check. Just because you CAN bite someone doesn't mean you WILL bite someone. Likewise with claws. Lots of creatures have claws, but honestly how many actually use them? Wolves don't have a Claw Attack. And yet, they have some pretty nasty claws on their feet and are more than able to grab onto prey, scratch with their hind legs, or even dig holes in the ground.

In short, what you're really asking isn't whether or not you are able to somehow hide the fact you have an anatomy general to your racial type, but whether or not your general anatomy poses a threat. To me, that's a Bluff Check.

If you can succeed a Bluff Check, yes, I would say they are "concealed".

As for hiding them in clothing, that's a Circumstantial Bonus. A lot of people don't play with all the extra Bonuses that the game offers. In our party, we do. If you are wearing mittens, sure your claws are hidden more. A +2 CB is reasonable for this. Now if you're wearing something far more sturdy such as iron gauntlets... well, can your claws really penetrate the iron fingers to scratch your opponent? Probably not. Therefore, I'd say you lose your claws but gain the gauntlet damage in place.

To give the other side of this coin, while you may be trying to conceal your intentions, your opponent is trying to spot them. If you're a 5' bipedal cat, it's probably safe to say you have claws of some kind. Someone might be granted a +2 Insight Bonus toward their Sense Motive to overcome your Bluff, knowing you're a freaking giant cat.

This all gets very mechanical and most people wouldn't bother with it. But honestly it's these little modifiers that really make-or-break certain situations.

[Kchaka]

Imagine a bodyguard of an evil inn frisking you before leting you enter his bosses's room. You can try to conceal a dagger to get through the frisking, but I imagine it would be reeeealy hard to conceal the fact you have bloody claws attached to your body.

A human, who doesn't naturally have claws, could try to conceal the fact the he has claws, but it's not like he can take the claws off and hide them under his hat, the fact that they are attached complicates things. Also, the nastier the claws, the bigger the base damage, the harder it could be to conceal them, to convince other people that they are not claws but just regular hands.

A creature who naturally has claws should also have some difficulty trying to pretend it doesn't have claws, unless the one doing the frisking doesn't know that that race naturally has claws.

You could try to walk with a long sleeves but I think that would be considered suspicious by most.

Could try to walk around with a fake arms, and hide the real ones under the cloak, shirt.

I don't know if there are specific rules for any of this (except concealing regular weapons), but I just wanted to say that, to me, concealing claws are not the same thing as concealing weapons like a dagger, it seems that claws should be something quite harder to conceal/fool.

[Marcus Steelfeather]

Cats can hide their claws. And not every catfolk has claws as natural attacks.

http://33.media.tumblr.com/60d291644f46d5d06869d229fec7e784/tumblr_n4pqamNI rL1s3395ro1_400.gif

[Weirdo]

Not every catfolk has claws, but if PCs are any indication it's a pretty common racial trait, and further anyone who is not very familiar with catfolk is more likely to make the assumption that all catfolk have claws, because all cats do, than to not realize that some catfolk have claws.

While a cat can retract their claws, that doesn't mean that people don't know they're there, so it's more like a sheathed weapon than a concealed one. (And even if a cat can retract their claws there's no indication that catfolk claws are also retractable.)

@CAHaugen - Seeing as humans don't get bite attacks, Rick's move would actually be an unusual application of unarmed strike.