The Songbird of Doom: A Guide to a most unlikely tank and Mechanism of Mass Destruction (Warning: GMs will hate you)


Advice

151 to 200 of 721 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

Imbicatus wrote:
Oli Ironbar wrote:

I would suggest something like this for a mini:

Fixed awful link

Thanks! How do you do that?

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Imbicatus wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

Yeah, the idea that the smaller something gets, the more damage it does in melee just doesn't sit well with me.

==Aelryinth

Really? It's a classic trope of the genre.

If you ever see stats on that thing, it's insanely strong (crushes bone, rends steel, etc). it's not doing damage BECAUSE it's small, it's IN SPITE OF being small.

Making something small insanely strong is a trope.

Making something stronger by shrinking it? Not so much. This build does it TWICE///by shrinking it down, AC goes up, TH goes up and DAMAGE goes up from Dex.
Now, all Medium creatures are two sizes bigger, so Risky Strike applies, so +4 to +12 MORE damage.
"All my opponents got even bigger, I can hurt them even MORE!"

Sounds kinda weird.

==Aelryinth

Scarab Sages

Oli Ironbar wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
Oli Ironbar wrote:

I would suggest something like this for a mini:

Fixed awful link

Thanks! How do you do that?

There are instructions at the bottom of the post window to show how. You use [ url=address]Link name[/url] tags to make the link

For example to link to the Paizo homepage, you would link to [ url=http://paizo.com ]Paizo Inc.[/url]. Without the space in the initial tag. You can see the tags if you reply to the message.

Paizo Inc..

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Aelryinth wrote:

Huh. Have to say, Risky striker is an imbalanced version of a pOwer attack feat.

1) It shouldn't stack with Power Attack and'
2) The AC penalty should increase with the damage penalty.

In combination with Expertise, you can effectively take -1 To hit and end up with +12 damage, no AC penalty. That's seriously better then Power attack...and only halflings can take it?

At my table, I'd rule 1 and 2 apply, just to prevent this kind of stacking abuse. Basically giving up your SMall size AC bonus for a Full one handed power attack bonus...not balanced.

Note that the closest equivalent feat otherwise is Big Game Hunter, which is +1 th, +2 dmg against size L or bigger stuff. This is seriously stronger then that, and better then a Power Attack of the same size due to the lesser penalty.

This kind of build is also why I seriously dislike dex to damage feats, and shows just how you SAD Dex to create a character that just makes me roll my eyes.

==Aelryinth

Well, it's for Halflings who get -2 Str and smaller weapons. Helps them stand by other martials.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

What you're basically saying is I take -2 Str and instantly net +3 to +11 damage for a feat, that they have no way of equaling.

that's not only unbalanced, it's blatantly unfair. You realize it makes halflings possibly the best damage dealers with the highest AC in the game, right?

==Aelryinth


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemartes wrote:

Impressive.

That being said I doubt I'd allow it at my table namely because I think it would interfer with fun for everyone else playing.

How can something as awesome as a songbird beating people up interfere with someone else's fun? Genuinely curious, cause it makes no sense.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
Lemartes wrote:

Impressive.

That being said I doubt I'd allow it at my table namely because I think it would interfer with fun for everyone else playing.

How can something as awesome as a songbird beating people up interfere with someone else's fun? Genuinely curious, cause it makes no sense.

They're saying it makes others feel inadequate when an efficiently-designed character struts their stuff.

Its not a totally wrong opinion, but not one I agree with since they're not taking into account that a very focused character is generally only good in one area of play. Any character focused to be good at something is going to "interfere with others enjoyment' in that area, where everyone else doesn't come close. But when you have a group of differently-specialized characters then that's a spotlight that changes from moment to moment.

I usually find that those unhappy-people made their character with no real focus on anything, aiming to be 'well-rounded' or balanced. Those kinds of characters are fine at low levels, but at higher levels the ones who put chains of feats and class abilities together will always outshine them. As that's their own choice, I don't think its right to complain about it when someone else put more thought into their build, and it shows in play.


Aelryinth wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

Yeah, the idea that the smaller something gets, the more damage it does in melee just doesn't sit well with me.

==Aelryinth

Really? It's a classic trope of the genre.

If you ever see stats on that thing, it's insanely strong (crushes bone, rends steel, etc). it's not doing damage BECAUSE it's small, it's IN SPITE OF being small.

Making something small insanely strong is a trope.

Making something stronger by shrinking it? Not so much. This build does it TWICE///by shrinking it down, AC goes up, TH goes up and DAMAGE goes up from Dex.
Now, all Medium creatures are two sizes bigger, so Risky Strike applies, so +4 to +12 MORE damage.
"All my opponents got even bigger, I can hurt them even MORE!"

Sounds kinda weird.

==Aelryinth

Yet there are characters like that in comics. Jack Power from Power Pack, The Atom, Antman and the Wasp.. they're the ones who come readily to mind, who got stronger when they shrunk down.


Arcwin wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

Yeah, the idea that the smaller something gets, the more damage it does in melee just doesn't sit well with me.

==Aelryinth

Really? It's a classic trope of the genre.

If you ever see stats on that thing, it's insanely strong (crushes bone, rends steel, etc). it's not doing damage BECAUSE it's small, it's IN SPITE OF being small.

Making something small insanely strong is a trope.

Making something stronger by shrinking it? Not so much. This build does it TWICE///by shrinking it down, AC goes up, TH goes up and DAMAGE goes up from Dex.
Now, all Medium creatures are two sizes bigger, so Risky Strike applies, so +4 to +12 MORE damage.
"All my opponents got even bigger, I can hurt them even MORE!"

Sounds kinda weird.

==Aelryinth

Yet there are characters like that in comics. Jack Power from Power Pack, The Atom, Antman and the Wasp.. they're the ones who come readily to mind, who got stronger when they shrunk down.

Pastoral Little People who are shockingly badass is pretty common trope in fantasy stories.

In Troy Dennings's Darksun novels, Krang and the others nearly get eaten by the Halflings, before the pretty half-elven wizard sweet-talked their chief into giving them the Heartwood Spear which enabled them to slay the most powerful Sorcerer-King in the known world. Although, it's fair to say that those halflings were different, because they were more like jungle-cannibal pygmies, more of a different trope.

But in the Dragonlance Chronicles, as the Dragon Armies descended on the land, it was in Kendermore that they had the most difficulty from the outset. The Knights of Solomnia were able to hold back their Dragon Lord with difficulty, but the Kender slew their Dragon Lord. Armies invading Kendermore usually turn out to be more of a source of entertainment and wealth than of peril.

In the beginning of Willow, when Queen Bavmorda's Death Dog followed Elora Dannon into the Welyn village festival, it terrorized the villagers for all of of a minute before the militia appeared out of nowhere and spitroasted it on their pike line.

When Sauramon sweet-talked Fanghorn into letting him leave the Isenguard, he attacked the Shire for easy pickings. But when Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin returned from destroying the Ring, it took very little time to organize the Hobbits and drive off the remnants of Sauraman's power, feathering poor old Sharky with their arrows.

It's a thing.

Scarab Sages

Aelryinth wrote:

What you're basically saying is I take -2 Str and instantly net +3 to +11 damage for a feat, that they have no way of equaling.

that's not only unbalanced, it's blatantly unfair. You realize it makes halflings possibly the best damage dealers with the highest AC in the game, right?

==Aelryinth

First off, risky striker only works on things two sizes larger then you. You have to become tiny to use it in most situations. Secondly, a halfling is effectively at -4 str vs the equivalent human fighter, because they lake a bonus and have a penalty. Third they are making weapon dice completely worthless. Fourth, without a reach weapon or entering a square, they threaten nothing when going small.

I agree that it should not be halting only. But it's not an imbalanced feat. This particular combination of tiny size, mouser, monkey shine, and risky striker is potent, yes. Buts it's significantly less broken than a horizon walker abusing extra rogue talent.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The worst thing in this thread is how a trickbuild, possible through the admittedly clever combination of several items, classes and abilities - already considered abusive by enough people - turned into the criticism of a feat that was 100% meant to help one of the weaker races.

Also, the mere existance of such a build and this thread shows that there is a demand for something like this and there are enough people that want to play small races and not suck at combat, because they are supposedly weaker than others and should not have ways of dealing a lot of damage in the eyes of some.

A recently published comparable game has a very good solution there and i think if there is some development in Pathfinder, or as a reference for future feats, that´s definately a direction to go.
Balance can still be kept though.
And probably the need for something like this here will go down a bit then.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Arcwin wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

Yeah, the idea that the smaller something gets, the more damage it does in melee just doesn't sit well with me.

==Aelryinth

Really? It's a classic trope of the genre.

If you ever see stats on that thing, it's insanely strong (crushes bone, rends steel, etc). it's not doing damage BECAUSE it's small, it's IN SPITE OF being small.

Making something small insanely strong is a trope.

Making something stronger by shrinking it? Not so much. This build does it TWICE///by shrinking it down, AC goes up, TH goes up and DAMAGE goes up from Dex.
Now, all Medium creatures are two sizes bigger, so Risky Strike applies, so +4 to +12 MORE damage.
"All my opponents got even bigger, I can hurt them even MORE!"

Sounds kinda weird.

==Aelryinth

Yet there are characters like that in comics. Jack Power from Power Pack, The Atom, Antman and the Wasp.. they're the ones who come readily to mind, who got stronger when they shrunk down.

Pastoral Little People who are shockingly badass is pretty common trope in fantasy stories.

In Troy Dennings's Darksun novels, Krang and the others nearly get eaten by the Halflings, before the pretty half-elven wizard sweet-talked their chief into giving them the Heartwood Spear which enabled them to slay the most powerful Sorcerer-King in the known world. Although, it's fair to say that those halflings were different, because they were more like jungle-cannibal pygmies, more of a different trope.

But in the Dragonlance Chronicles, as the Dragon Armies descended on the land, it was in Kendermore that they had the most difficulty from the outset. The Knights of Solomnia were able to hold back their Dragon Lord with difficulty, but the Kender slew their Dragon Lord. Armies invading Kendermore usually turn out to be more of a source of entertainment and wealth than of peril.

In the beginning of Willow,...

And I agree with all of these and I have no problem with them.

Ant-man and the Atom don't get stronger when they shrink. They retain their strength (to an extent...higher str to wt ratio). That's quite different. Most of them don't keep ALL their strength, just a portion of it. Not having mass still means they get knocked around easily in a fight. Jack Power is an exception since he's really just changing his density, and his size with it...his strength remains the same, he's just smaller.

Small folk being badass is okay. Small folk getting more badass when they get even smaller?....meh.

==Aelryinth

Shadow Lodge

On page 182, it defines natural attacks as claws, bites and the like. On page 149, in the rules for unarmed strikes, you can not mix unarmed strikes & natural attacks, it is the last thing said under that heading.

That being said, the battle sequence of the songbird would be two claws and a bite. There are posts that write the bite is a secondary attack. In that case, it gets the -5 on its attack roll and since it is a secondary attack, half strength and one for one on power attack.

Here is another thing, agile works with weapon finesse which says it works with light weapons. Unarmed strikes and natural attacks do not mix as per I write in the first paragraph. I do not believe natural attacks are considered light weapons. They are considered primary or secondary or weapons.

On page 211, under the heading of natural attacks, each limb only gets one attack. Not for the base attack bonus of +6 or more and getting an itinerary number of attacks

Correct me if I am wrong but these rules are written where you can find them. One caveat, please forgive, me I only read the first and last pages. If this has been mentioned, I'm sorry if I am redundant. It took hours to get this far.


ShadowDax wrote:
On page 182, it defines natural attacks as claws, bites and the like. On page 149, in the rules for unarmed strikes, you can not mix unarmed strikes & natural attacks, it is the last thing said under that heading.

Getting a citation off the PRD is easier. I don't know what you're taking to mean that they don't mix, but I don't think thats correct.

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.

Quote:
That being said, the battle sequence of the songbird would be two claws and a bite.

A raven only has one natural attack, the bite.

[url=http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pzg0?Standard-Races-Claws-Talons-and-Feet#44]The raven cannot grow claws on its feet.

Talons are much like claws, but go on a creature's feet, usually a bipedal creature (especially a flying bipedal creature such as a giant eagle or harpy). An ability that grants you claw attacks cannot be used as if they were talon attacks (in other words, you can't "re-skin" the ability's game mechanics so you can use it on a different limb).

Quote:
There are posts that write the bite is a secondary attack. In that case, it gets the -5 on its attack roll and since it is a secondary attack, half strength and one for one on power attack.

eyup (and on pirhana strike)

Quote:
Here is another thing, agile works with weapon finesse which says it works with light weapons. Unarmed strikes and natural attacks do not mix as per I write in the first paragraph. I do not believe natural attacks are considered light weapons. They are considered primary or secondary or weapons.

Under weapon finesse

Special: Natural weapons are considered light weapons.


ShadowDax wrote:

On page 182, it defines natural attacks as claws, bites and the like. On page 149, in the rules for unarmed strikes, you can not mix unarmed strikes & natural attacks, it is the last thing said under that heading....

bite is a secondary attack. In that case, it gets the -5 on its attack roll and since it is a secondary attack, half strength and one for one on power attack.

Usually, adding an unarmed strike to natural attacks in a full attack action would indeed demote any primary natural attacks to secondary ones.

But remember that the OP is getting Unarmred Strikes via levels in Monk. Monk and Brawler unarmed strikes are different. They have a class ability which you can find under the description of of unarmed strikes in the descriptions of both classes. They both say the same thing, that their unarmed strikes count as natural weapons for the purposes of effects that improve natural weapons.

So when a Monk or Brawler adds one or more unarmed strikes to a full attack action involving natural attacks, the primary natural attacks are not demoted to secondary, so no -5s this time.

Shadow Lodge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
ShadowDax wrote:
On page 182, it defines natural attacks as claws, bites and the like. On page 149, in the rules for unarmed strikes, you can not mix unarmed strikes & natural attacks, it is the last thing said under that heading.

Getting a citation off the PRD is easier. I don't know what you're taking to mean that they don't mix, but I don't think thats correct.

Look in the equipment chapter for "strikes,unarmed". It might be easier to look for, "sword, bastard" and the previous sentence is what you are looking for. The last sentence in strikes, unarmed is what you are looking to read.

Shadow Lodge

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
ShadowDax wrote:
not demoted to secondary.

I asked a long time ago on how to calculate a mixed flurry with different classes. To sum up, what ever level you were in monk with the flurry's attack bonus (at that time the monk was the class in question) add up the rest of the base attack bonuses to your flurry attack from the rest of the classes and that was your full attack bonus with your number of attacks. For every five basic attack bonus you have beyond one that you were adding to the flurry's attack bonus, there was an itinerary attack added to the flurry.

I don't know if that has been brought up or if it has changed since then, but that is what I know of how to calculate mixed classes and flurry's. Your damage is not the damage of the Raven, it is the damage of your sized tiny creature doing brawler or monk of many styles damage. For being fourth level and size tiny, it probably is a die three anyway.

I could be could be wrong on this, but I believe you are limited on adding a creatures natural attack sequense and a weapons sequense or any flurry sequence. Weapons are limited with each classes flurry not that all flurries cannot have weapons at all. If you attach natural attacks to a flurry, I don't think that can happen, lots of examples of this before.

With a weapon, all natural attacks with remaining limbs are secondary Attacks. It is late and I understand the Raven only has one bite attack. I'll have to come back much later, sorry other things to do, much work and the like. Ciao

Grand Lodge

ShadowDax wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
ShadowDax wrote:
On page 182, it defines natural attacks as claws, bites and the like. On page 149, in the rules for unarmed strikes, you can not mix unarmed strikes & natural attacks, it is the last thing said under that heading.

Getting a citation off the PRD is easier. I don't know what you're taking to mean that they don't mix, but I don't think thats correct.

Look in the equipment chapter for "strikes,unarmed". It might be easier to look for, "sword, bastard" and the previous sentence is what you are looking for. The last sentence in strikes, unarmed is what you are looking to read.

Alright, lemme quote the last sentence from that:

Quote:
Unarmed strikes do not count as natural weapons (see Chapter 8).

Yeah, not seeing anything in that line (or the entire paragraph, for that matter) that says you can't mix unarmed strikes and natural weapons.


ShadowDax wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
ShadowDax wrote:
not demoted to secondary.

I asked a long time ago on how to calculate a mixed flurry with different classes. To sum up, what ever level you were in monk with the flurry's attack bonus (at that time the monk was the class in question) add up the rest of the base attack bonuses to your flurry attack from the rest of the classes and that was your full attack bonus with your number of attacks. For every five basic attack bonus you have beyond one that you were adding to the flurry's attack bonus, there was an itinerary attack added to the flurry.

I don't know if that has been brought up or if it has changed since then, but that is what I know of how to calculate mixed classes and flurry's. Your damage is not the damage of the Raven, it is the damage of your sized tiny creature doing brawler or monk of many styles damage. For being fourth level and size tiny, it probably is a die three anyway.

I could be could be wrong on this, but I believe you are limited on adding a creatures natural attack sequense and a weapons sequense or any flurry sequence. Weapons are limited with each classes flurry not that all flurries cannot have weapons at all. If you attach natural attacks to a flurry, I don't think that can happen, lots of examples of this before.

With a weapon, all natural attacks with remaining limbs are secondary Attacks. It is late and I understand the Raven only has one bite attack. I'll have to come back much later, sorry other things to do, much work and the like. Ciao

I'm not talking about Flurry of Blows at all. That is a Full Attack action: you certainly don't get to take any Attack Actions the same round after you Flurry. If you are using one or more Monk Weapons, any or all of those attacks within the Flurry can be made with any of those Monk Weapons you happen to be using. And if you have the Feat Feral Combat Training, you can treat your selected Natural Attack as a Monk Weapon for th purposes of the Flurry.

I was referring to the Full Attack Action, not Flurry of Blows. There is no particular limit as to how many Natural Attacks you can make as part of the Full Attack Action. If you have a Claw attack, a Gore Attack, a Tentacle, Talons, a Slam, you get to make them all in addition to your weapon or unarmed strikes awarded by your BAB.

ShadowDax wrote:
I understand the Raven only has one bite attack.

If you say so, I'm not sure. But bear in mind that the OP was not talking about turning into a Raven. I mentioned turning into a Raven via the Tengu Feat as a possible variant on the OP's build.

ShadowDax wrote:
With a weapon, all natural attacks with remaining limbs are secondary Attacks.

With a manufactured weapon, yes. If you are somehow adding more natural attacks to your attack routine, no primary weapon is demoted to secondary as long as none of your attacks are with manufactured weapons.


A bird worthy of song.


Sadly not PFS legal, but I'm imagining the songbird with the Gloves of the Beast, from the second psionics book, adding 6d6 slam natural attacks... :)

Shadow Lodge

Jeff Merola wrote:
ShadowDax wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
ShadowDax wrote:

.

Look in the equipment chapter for "strikes,unarmed". It might be easier to look for, "sword, bastard" and the previous sentence is what you are looking for. The last sentence in strikes, unarmed is what you are looking to read.

Alright, lemme quote the last sentence from that:

Quote:
Unarmed strikes do not count as natural weapons (see Chapter 8).
Yeah, not seeing anything in that line (or the entire paragraph, for that matter) that says you can't mix unarmed strikes and natural weapons.

Think of a great sword, bow, unarmed strikes, & natural attacks as different weapon systems, one or the other is used.

It would be like trying to use a bow or great sword with unarmed strikes. The monk or brawler has a certain number of weapons that can work with their flurry's. Each of those character classes in thier flurry's description says which weapons work with their flurry's because thier abilitys say so, but only with their flurry's.

Never in any unarmed strike ability does it say, other than those character classes flurry's, you can use weapons of any other kind. Natural attacks are not mentioned as a monk or close weapon. Therefore, natural attacks are not usable with any flurry's or unarmed strikes.


ShadowDax wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
ShadowDax wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
ShadowDax wrote:

.

Look in the equipment chapter for "strikes,unarmed". It might be easier to look for, "sword, bastard" and the previous sentence is what you are looking for. The last sentence in strikes, unarmed is what you are looking to read.

Alright, lemme quote the last sentence from that:

Quote:
Unarmed strikes do not count as natural weapons (see Chapter 8).
Yeah, not seeing anything in that line (or the entire paragraph, for that matter) that says you can't mix unarmed strikes and natural weapons.

Think of a great sword, bow, unarmed strikes, & natural attacks as different weapon systems, one or the other is used.

It would be like trying to use a bow or great sword with unarmed strikes. The monk or brawler has a certain number of weapons that can work with their flurry's. Each of those character classes in thier flurry's description says which weapons work with their flurry's because thier abilitys say so, but only with their flurry's.

Never in any unarmed strike ability does it say, other than those character classes flurry's, you can use weapons of any other kind. Natural attacks are not mentioned as a monk or close weapon. Therefore, natural attacks are not usable with any flurry's or unarmed strikes.

I'm not certain what your thesis is in this post.

There is nothing wrong with making unarmed strikes or claw attacks while holding a bow or greatsword.

There is a feat that allows you to use a natural attack with Flurry of Blows.

I'm not sure how Flurry of Blows came up. The OP's character is a Monk Master of Many Styles, which does not get Flurry of Blows. I did not broach the subject of Flurry of Blows.

I wrote:
I'm not talking about Flurry of Blows at all.

Descriptions of unarmed strike abilities wouldn't talk about using other kinds of weapons. They would talk about unarmed strikes. Not finding information about natural attacks in the unarmed strikes section of the rules doesn't seem to prove any conclusion to me.

I'm sorry, I must not be understanding you correctly. Would you please try to elucidate your argument?

Scarab Sages

ShadowDax wrote:


Think of a great sword, bow, unarmed strikes, & natural attacks as different weapon systems, one or the other is used.

It would be like trying to use a bow or great sword with unarmed strikes. The monk or brawler has a certain number of weapons that can work with their flurry's. Each of those character classes in thier flurry's description says which weapons work with their flurry's because thier abilitys say so, but only with their flurry's.

This is just completely wrong. There are weapon attacks and natural attacks. Weapon attacks use iterative attacks, and can benefit form Two-Weapon Fighting. Natural attacks are non-iterative and are either primary or secondary. Natural attacks can be combined with weapon attacks but become secondary if they do. A unarmed strike is treated as a light weapon attack. It can be used with two-weapon fighting, and natural attacks. The only reason you can't flurry with them is flurry forbids it.

ShadowDax wrote:


Never in any unarmed strike ability does it say, other than those character classes flurry's, you can use weapons of any other kind. Natural attacks are not mentioned as a monk or close weapon. Therefore, natural attacks are not usable with any flurry's or unarmed strikes.
Actually, it does.
PRD Combat wrote:
Unarmed Strike Damage: An unarmed strike from a Medium character deals 1d3 points of bludgeoning damage (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). A Small character's unarmed strike deals 1d2 points of bludgeoning damage, while a Large character's unarmed strike deals 1d4 points of bludgeoning damage. All damage from unarmed strikes is nonlethal damage. Unarmed strikes count as light weapons (for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties and so on).

Unarmed strikes count as light weapons. Nothing is stopping you from using an unarmed strike with any other weapon, unless you are attempting to use two weapon fighting, and only then the only restriction is you can't be using a two-handed weapon and unarmed strikes because it breaks the "hands of effort" faq.

Shadow Lodge

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
ShadowDax wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
ShadowDax wrote:
not demoted to secondary.
I'm not talking about Flurry of Blows at all. That is a Full Attack action: you certainly don't get to take any Attack Actions the same round after you Flurry. If you are using one or more Monk Weapons, any or all of those attacks within the Flurry can be made with any of those Monk Weapons you happen to be using. And if you have the Feat Feral Combat Training, you can treat your selected Natural Attack as a Monk Weapon for th purposes...

I did not know about the ferral feat, there was something mentioned about it not being in the build & what it is earlier. I believe the feral feat & a flurry is what you are looking for.

On page 182 of the CRB under the heading natural attacks starting in the third sentence it says, "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). 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."

Hence, you do not get itinerary attacks for a high base attack bonus with natural attacks. On page 31 in the bestiary, looking at the dire or cave bear, you will notice the bear gets a claw, claw, bite attack sequense & a base attack of +7. Not one of the claws gets an extra attack for a high base attack bonus.

In the bestiary on page 29 for the basilisk, it has a base attack bonus of +7 and one bite attack.


ShadowDax wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
ShadowDax wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
ShadowDax wrote:
not demoted to secondary.
I'm not talking about Flurry of Blows at all. That is a Full Attack action: you certainly don't get to take any Attack Actions the same round after you Flurry. If you are using one or more Monk Weapons, any or all of those attacks within the Flurry can be made with any of those Monk Weapons you happen to be using. And if you have the Feat Feral Combat Training, you can treat your selected Natural Attack as a Monk Weapon for th purposes...

I did not know about the ferral feat, there was something mentioned about it not being in the build & what it is earlier. I believe the feral feat & a flurry is what you are looking for.

On page 182 of the CRB under the heading natural attacks starting in the third sentence it says, "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). 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."

Hence, you do not get itinerary attacks for a high base attack bonus with natural attacks. On page 31 in the bestiary, looking at the dire or cave bear, you will notice the bear gets a claw, claw, bite attack sequense & a base attack of +7. Not one of the claws gets an extra attack for a high base attack bonus.

In the bestiary on page 29 for the basilisk, it has a base attack bonus of +7 and one bite attack.

If you check out the hound archon it has either 1 bite and 1 slam attack (at +8 Bab and str) or 2 masterwork sword attacks (+9/+4 bab, str and mstwk) and 1 bite (+3 bab and str, -5 for secondary) You can totally mix iteritve attacks (either a weapon or unarmed strikes using improved unarmed combat)and natural attacks, which become seconary as a consequence.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:

[

Usually, adding an unarmed strike to natural attacks in a full attack action would indeed demote any primary natural attacks to secondary ones.

But remember that the OP is getting Unarmred Strikes via levels in Monk. Monk and Brawler unarmed strikes are different.

I've never seen this interpretation used. I dont think that it works. Its been established that you can't simply keep adding limbs to multi weapon fight with.

Monk unarmed strikes can be enhanced with EFFECTS that augment natural or manufactured weapons. That does not make them natural weapons.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber

Lets Look at a 6th level Tengu monk.

He took the claws racial trait so now he has claws and a bite.

He is also a monk so his BAB is 4, 6 w/Flurry. His unarmed strike is 1d8, claws do 1d3, bite does 1d3. We will say he has weapon finesse and a 20 dex, +5 bonus.

If he flurrys he can do +9/+9/+4 w/his unarmed strike or a monk weapon.

He could instead attack with bite/claw/claw for +9/+9/+9.

He could hit with his unarmed strike +9 and bite/claw/claw +4/+4/+4. His claw/claw/bite would add half strength to damage

If he had the multiattack feat it would be unarmed strike +9 and bite/claw/claw +7/+7/+7. His claw/claw/bite would add half strength to damage

If he had a monk weapon he could do monk weapon +9, bite/claw +4/+4 but can't use the claw that is holding the weapon.

If he had feral combat training Bite he could flurry with hit bite for +9/+9/+4 for 1d8 + Str mod damage.

You will note the only time he gets an iterative is when he flurries, because that is the only time his BAB is high enough. This only works with his unarmed strike or weapon or if he can flurry with his Bite.


ShadowDax wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
ShadowDax wrote:
On page 182, it defines natural attacks as claws, bites and the like. On page 149, in the rules for unarmed strikes, you can not mix unarmed strikes & natural attacks, it is the last thing said under that heading.

Getting a citation off the PRD is easier. I don't know what you're taking to mean that they don't mix, but I don't think thats correct.

Look in the equipment chapter for "strikes,unarmed". It might be easier to look for, "sword, bastard" and the previous sentence is what you are looking for. The last sentence in strikes, unarmed is what you are looking to read.

Strike, Unarmed: A Medium character deals 1d3 points of nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike. A Small character deals 1d2 points of nonlethal damage. A monk or any character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat can deal lethal or nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes, at his discretion. The damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls.

An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon. Therefore, you can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with an unarmed strike. Unarmed strikes do not count as natural weapons (see Combat).

This does not say they won't combine.

Shadow Lodge

Imbicatus wrote:
ShadowDax wrote:


Think of a great sword, bow, unarmed strikes, & natural attacks as different weapon systems, one or the other is used.

It would be like trying to use a bow or great sword with unarmed strikes. The monk or brawler has a certain number of weapons that can work with their flurry's. Each of those character classes in thier flurry's description says which weapons work with their flurry's because thier abilitys say so, but only with their flurry's.

This is just completely wrong. There are weapon attacks and natural attacks. Weapon attacks use iterative attacks, and can benefit form Two-Weapon Fighting. Natural attacks are non-iterative and are either primary or secondary. Natural attacks can be combined with weapon attacks but become secondary if they do. A unarmed strike is treated as a light weapon attack. It can be used with two-weapon fighting, and natural attacks. The only reason you can't flurry with them is flurry forbids it.

I do not believ you can use a natural attack as an unarmed strike. Yes, the two weapon fighting feat allows you to use two weapon fighting with two different weapons with less minuses. If a creature has a hands and claws plus the two weapon fighting feat, it would take less minuses attacking with its hands & claws. The same minuses would be the same attacking with a kuckri and a Longsword. A kuckri and a longsword are two separate weapons like unarmed strikes and natural attacks are two separate weapons.

Let me ask you this, why does the feral combat feat exist? If you can already use a natural attack with unarmed strikes, why do you need this feat? I present to you the game developers saw a need for this feat because you can not use natural attacks as an unarmed strike. Look in the equipment chapter under strikes, unarmed in the last sentence.

I believe you can not use natural attacks as an unarmed strike. Page 149 of the CRB under the heading, strikes, unarmed the last sentence says, "Unarmed strikes do not count as natural weapons (see Chapter 8).

ShadowDax wrote:


Never in any unarmed strike ability does it say, other than those character classes flurry's, you can use weapons of any other kind. Natural attacks are not mentioned as a monk or close weapon. Therefore, natural attacks are not usable with any flurry's or unarmed strikes.
Actually, it does.
PRD Combat wrote:
Unarmed Strike Damage: An unarmed strike from a Medium character deals 1d3 points of bludgeoning damage (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). A Small character's unarmed strike deals 1d2 points of bludgeoning damage, while a Large character's unarmed strike deals 1d4 points of bludgeoning damage. All damage from unarmed strikes is nonlethal damage. Unarmed strikes count as light weapons (for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties and so on).
Unarmed strikes count as light weapons. Nothing is stopping you from using an unarmed strike with any other weapon, unless you are attempting to use two weapon fighting, and only then the only restriction is you can't be using a two-handed weapon and...

Shadow Lodge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
ShadowDax wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
ShadowDax wrote:
On page 182, it defines natural attacks as claws, bites and the like. On page 149, in the rules for unarmed strikes, you can not mix unarmed strikes & natural attacks, it is the last thing said under that heading.

Getting a citation off the PRD is easier. I don't know what you're taking to mean that they don't mix, but I don't think thats correct.

Look in the equipment chapter for "strikes,unarmed". It might be easier to look for, "sword, bastard" and the previous sentence is what you are looking for. The last sentence in strikes, unarmed is what you are looking to read.

Strike, Unarmed: A Medium character deals 1d3 points of nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike. A Small character deals 1d2 points of nonlethal damage. A monk or any character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat can deal lethal or nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes, at his discretion. The damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls.

An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon. Therefore, you can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with an unarmed strike. Unarmed strikes do not count as natural weapons (see Combat).

This does not say they won't combine.

All this is, in conjunction with everyone that has mentioned this, is unarmed strike damage as a humanoid with hands, not natural attacks.

Scarab Sages

ShadowDax wrote:


I do not believ you can use a natural attack as an unarmed strike. Yes, the two weapon fighting feat allows you to use two weapon fighting with two different weapons with less minuses. If a creature has a hands and claws plus the two weapon fighting feat, it would take less minuses attacking with its hands & claws. The same minuses would be the same attacking with a kuckri and a Longsword. A kuckri and a longsword are two separate weapons like unarmed strikes and natural attacks are two separate weapons.

I'm not saying they aren't separate attacks. I am saying that you can make your iterative attacks with unarmed strikes, and then make your (now secondary) natural weapon attacks as well.

ShadowDax wrote:


Let me ask you this, why does the feral combat feat exist? If you can already use a natural attack with unarmed strikes, why do you need this feat? I present to you the game developers saw a need for this feat because you can not use natural attacks as an unarmed strike. Look in the equipment chapter under strikes, unarmed in the last sentence.

Feral Combat Training does exactly two things. First, it allows you to apply effects that enhance unarmed strikes (such as style feats or monk unarmed strike damage) to a natural attack. It also allow that natural attack to be used in a flurry of blows. That's all.

ShadowDax wrote:
I believe you can not use natural attacks as an unarmed strike. Page 149 of the CRB under the heading, strikes, unarmed the last sentence says, "Unarmed strikes do not count as natural weapons (see Chapter 8).

No one is saying you use unarmed strikes as a natural weapon or vice-versa.

Shadow Lodge

Taenia wrote:

Lets Look at a 6th level Tengu monk.

He took the claws racial trait so now he has claws and a bite.

He is also a monk so his BAB is 4, 6 w/Flurry. His unarmed strike is 1d8, claws do 1d3, bite does 1d3. We will say he has weapon finesse and a 20 dex, +5 bonus.

If he flurrys he can do +9/+9/+4 w/his unarmed strike or a monk weapon.

He could instead attack with bite/claw/claw for +9/+9/+9.

He could hit with his unarmed strike +9 and bite/claw/claw +4/+4/+4. His claw/claw/bite would add half strength to damage

If he had the multiattack feat it would be unarmed strike +9 and bite/claw/claw +7/+7/+7. His claw/claw/bite would add half strength to damage

If he had a monk weapon he could do monk weapon +9, bite/claw +4/+4 but can't use the claw that is holding the weapon.

If he had feral combat training Bite he could flurry with hit bite for +9/+9/+4 for 1d8 + Str mod damage.

You will note the only time he gets an iterative is when he flurries, because that is the only time his BAB is high enough. This only works with his unarmed strike or weapon or if he can flurry with his Bite.

Notice it says in the trait you qualify for the improved unarmed strike feat in conjunction with its natural attacks. Because the trait says you can do this along woith being able to flurry and the like, you can combine the natural attacks (claws and as such) with all tat the monk does.

Scarab Sages

ShadowDax wrote:


Notice it says in the trait you qualify for the improved unarmed strike feat in conjunction with its natural attacks. Because the trait says you can do this along woith being able to flurry and the like, you can combine the natural attacks (claws and as such) with all tat the monk does.

No, the claw trait does not do that. It allows you to count as if you had improved unarmed strike for meeting feat requirements. It does not allow you to use those feats with your claw or bite if they require an unarmed strike without feral combat training.

Shadow Lodge

Imbicatus wrote:
ShadowDax wrote:


I do not believ you can use a natural attack as an unarmed strike. Yes, the two weapon fighting feat allows you to use two weapon fighting with two different weapons with less minuses. If a creature has a hands and claws plus the two weapon fighting feat, it would take less minuses attacking with its hands & claws. The same minuses would be the same attacking with a kuckri and a Longsword. A kuckri and a longsword are two separate weapons like unarmed strikes and natural attacks are two separate weapons.

I'm not saying they aren't separate attacks. I am saying that you can make your iterative attacks with unarmed strikes, and then make your (now secondary) natural weapon attacks as well.

ShadowDax wrote:


Let me ask you this, why does the feral combat feat exist? If you can already use a natural attack with unarmed strikes, why do you need this feat? I present to you the game developers saw a need for this feat because you can not use natural attacks as an unarmed strike. Look in the equipment chapter under strikes, unarmed in the last sentence.

Feral Combat Training does exactly two things. First, it allows you to apply effects that enhance unarmed strikes (such as style feats or monk unarmed strike damage) to a natural attack. It also allow that natural attack to be used in a flurry of blows. That's all.

ShadowDax wrote:
I believe you can not use natural attacks as an unarmed strike. Page 149 of the CRB under the heading, strikes, unarmed the last sentence says, "Unarmed strikes do not count as natural weapons (see Chapter 8).
No one is saying you use unarmed strikes as a natural weapon or vice-versa.

I believe some of the post's are implying that they are being combined. The bird is using a natural attack with unarmed strikes with out help and getting multiple attacks not using a flurry. I don't believe that is possible with strikes, unarmed, the imp unarmed strike feat & what it also says under natural attacks in the combat chapter. Otherwise, in all else you have posted I believe you are correct.

I believe with help they can be combined, that is all.

I was wondering what you would do with Monsterous physique II & being tiny. A feat that allows an attack of opportunity when entering a square would create synergy. There have been other options mentioned here I did not think of. It makes a Dex fighting character much more fun for changing its size!


ShadowDax wrote:
I believe the feral feat & a flurry is what you are looking for.

That is the Feat I was referring to in my last post.

ShadowDax wrote:
you do not get itinerary attacks for a high base attack bonus with natural attacks.

Yes. I do not dispute that. We are of one mind on this point.

Shadow Lodge

Imbicatus wrote:
ShadowDax wrote:


Notice it says in the trait you qualify for the improved unarmed strike feat in conjunction with its natural attacks. Because the trait says you can do this along woith being able to flurry and the like, you can combine the natural attacks (claws and as such) with all tat the monk does.
No, the claw trait does not do that. It allows you to count as if you had improved unarmed strike for meeting feat requirements. It does not allow you to use those feats with your claw or bite if they require an unarmed strike without feral combat training.

Please understand, you would not be able to do so if the trait did not say you can use these natural attacks as treated as having the Improved Unarmed Strike feat for the purpose of qualifying for other feats. This racial trait replaces swordtrained.

If the ability did not say they could not be treated this way, your attacks would be just a claw, claw, bite attack and no more. You couldn't flurry, that is one of my points. If you have claws with out help, you can not use unarmed strikes. Otherwise, why would the game designers put that in? Ink and book space is at a premium. Everything in the book is put there for a reason.

My time is getting short, hopefuly I can answer one more post.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Its been established that you can't simply keep adding limbs to multi weapon fight with.

I am not arguing about anything like that at all, at least not here and now.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:

[

Usually, adding an unarmed strike to natural attacks in a full attack action would indeed demote any primary natural attacks to secondary ones.

But remember that the OP is getting Unarmred Strikes via levels in Monk. Monk and Brawler unarmed strikes are different.

I've never seen this interpretation used. I dont think that it works....

Monk unarmed strikes can be enhanced with EFFECTS that augment natural or manufactured weapons. That does not make them natural weapons.

I never have, either, but it is what the rules say.

The fact that Monk Unarmed strikes can be enhanced with effects that augment natural or manufactured weapons does not make them natural weapons, but the text says something else.

Monk Class description, subheading Unarmed Strike wrote:
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.

The text of the class ability specifically states that Monk Unarmed Strikes do indeed count as Natural Weapons sometimes. And the wording of the ability allows for Monk Unarmed Strikes to count as natural weapons not only for the purposes of receiving benefits, but also for the purpose of granting benefits.

Shadow Lodge

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
ShadowDax wrote:
I believe the feral feat & a flurry is what you are looking for.

That is the Feat I was referring to in my last post.

ShadowDax wrote:
you do not get itinerary attacks for a high base attack bonus with natural attacks.
Yes. I do not dispute that. We are of one mind on this point.

It took me over an hour to read the first page, I can not possibly read everything here. I do not remember the build getting help to use unarmed strikes with natural attacks. If you are using natur attacks you do not get more than one attack per limb.

I do not see how this has changed without help. Maybe latter in another post this was remedied. In that case I have not found it yet, no one has mentioned otherwise.

I will have to come back later, ciao.

Shadow Lodge

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Its been established that you can't simply keep adding limbs to multi weapon fight with.

I am not arguing about anything like that at all, at least not here and now.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:

[

Usually, adding an unarmed strike to natural attacks in a full attack action would indeed demote any primary natural attacks to secondary ones.

But remember that the OP is getting Unarmred Strikes via levels in Monk. Monk and Brawler unarmed strikes are different.

I've never seen this interpretation used. I dont think that it works....

Monk unarmed strikes can be enhanced with EFFECTS that augment natural or manufactured weapons. That does not make them natural weapons.

I never have, either, but it is what the rules say.

The fact that Monk Unarmed strikes can be enhanced with effects that augment natural or manufactured weapons does not make them natural weapons, but the text says something else.

Monk Class description, subheading Unarmed Strike wrote:
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.
The text of the class ability specifically states that Monk Unarmed Strikes do indeed count as Natural Weapons sometimes. And the wording of the ability allows for Monk Unarmed Strikes to count as natural weapons not only for the purposes of receiving benefits, but also for the purpose of granting benefits.

To be quick, the rules for the monk and natural attacks are not to be used in conjunction with each other. A monk is considered a humanoid with hands in that players characters description class.

Think of it as a monk using unarmed strikes and not natural attacks. Spells and effects that can affect a monks unarmed strikes like they can natural weapons or natural attacks can affect the monks unarmed shrikes. These rules do not say the monks unarmed strikes are natural attacks.

Then again, you are mixing natural attacks and unarmed strikes, I have got to go, ciao.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber

Actually the Tengu trait is irrelevant. I could have done this with a Tiefling with claws and it would do the same thing.

You can freely combine natural and manufactured attacks. From the Bestiary:

Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action (although often a creature must forgo one natural attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a claw, tentacle, or slam). Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their available natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack’s original type.

In this case unarmed strike are weapons but not natural weapons as indicated by bold. Keep in mind they are getting multiple unarmed strikes through iteratives, one of the builds is 12 level with a BAB of 11.

Scarab Sages

Claw Attack wrote:


Tengus with this racial trait have learned to use their claws as natural weapons. They gain two claw attacks as primary natural attacks that deal 1d3 points of damage, and are treated as having the Improved Unarmed Strike feat for the purpose of qualifying for other feats. This racial trait replaces swordtrained.

The claw trait specifically limits Improved Unarmed Strike for the purpose of qualifying for other feats. If it allowed claws to count as unarmed strikes, it would have said so.

Pathfinder is a permissive system. You gain what is written and no more.

Silver Crusade

Before the thread gets too far into the mechanics of it, I'd like to say that I am playing a build similar to this, and that it is a whole lot of fun (and that it doesn't really piss off the GM's).

A few things I've found:

The low level play is support based. With high dex, you have great AC and attack, but low damage. Positioning for flanking is great, and combat maneuvers with finesse weapons is the bomb (+10 disarm vs blade weapons with a tekko-kage at a BAB of 2 or 3).

Once the Ring of Seven Lovely Colors is added in, the first few rounds are not all beak rending mayhem. With a high initiative roll, you can transform into a songbird (std action) and then get into position (40' move).

If you end the first round in an opponents square, you are good to go to town on it, but if not, few enemies see you as a high threat (compared to the barbarian that just cleaved through half the encounter) so they won't come to you.

I have spent many a round waiting to AoO a critter with Snake Style, only to have it look at me (and according to one GM's voice over) say to itself 'what is that bird doing here?' and move on to the more appetizing players.

So with a low initiative roll, and after 1 round of transforming and moving into position, there are only the toughest enemies left, if any at all. And by that time the party is glad that you are finally in the fight.

Now if you can get the drop on the enemies, it is another story and the build really shines. But then the party is usually planning together for a moment and picking targets before hand (the little bird ideally taking the largest possible), so the build ultimately becomes a team asset, rather than the player running the build seeming like an ass-et to the GM and party.

Those are my two copper pieces anyhow.

Adventure On!
Oli


Minor quibble: You list 7th level as gaining the Ranger Combat Style from Slayer... shouldn't that be 8th level (2nd Slayer level)?

As a DM, I don't think I would allow Aspect of the Beast to work with this, but that argument has already been raised.

EDIT: To clarify why I would not allow this, not that it matters over much as the build is still amusing and fun without the claws...

Polymorph:
While under the effects of a polymorph spell, you lose all extraordinary and supernatural abilities that depend on your original form (such as keen senses, scent, and darkvision), as well as any natural attacks and movement types possessed by your original form.

Aspect of the Beast:
Claws of the Beast (Ex): You grow a pair of claws. These claws are primary attacks that deal 1d4 points of damage (1d3 if you are Small).

Shadow Lodge

First of all, I would like to thank you all for a cordial discussion on the issue. I do not see this board as hostile or heated in any way. On the other hand, if I have been rude in any way because of the way I put things. Sorry, this is not my intention.

Believe me I do not usually reply on most advice threads. This build has potential and I like it. In discussing the issue, I have learned a thing or two that were holes in my thinking about playing small. All things being equal, thank you for your replies.

Taenia & Imbicatus, as I recall off the top of my head, the monk and brawler, meaning all flurry stuff here, automatically gives you improved unarmed strike as part of their classes. The flurry of blows class feature along with the use of using unarmed strikes, is the weapon used in flurry of blows and monk weapons can be used in conjunction with this and only when flurry of blows is used. I do not believe monk weapons can be used in conjunction outside this because under flurry of blows, using monk weapons is mentioned.

Keep in mind, monks are not proficient automatically with monk weapons. Monks are only proficient with what the class gives you. I have run into this thinking a few times.

As it has been mentioned, the Tengu racial trait gives you with its claws, the feat impr unarmed strike and to qualify to use the claws for other feats.

Where I see this trait as if it just said you have claws and it did not give you the imp unarmed feat or any means to qualify for other feats for having imp unarmed strike, the claws of the Tengu trait could not be used with the feat - imp unarmed strike.

Because the trait says that you have the imp unarmed strike and can qualify for other feats that require imp unarmed strike, you can use the monk's flurry of blows is an attack sequence using unarmed strikes.

I believe a natural attack such as a claw is a different weapon from using unarmed strikes. You would need help to combine them such as using the Tengu trait which I think is awesome.

In the equipment chapter under strikes, unarmed, the last sentence I believe separates the two into being two seperate weapons.

This sentence is, "Unarmed strikes do not count as natural weapons (see Chapter 8)".

In the end if the flurry of blows class feature the end of it reads, A monk with natural weapons cannot use such weapons as part of a flurry of blows, nor can he make natural attacks in addition to his flurry of blows attacks."

I understand that there are other people that do not believe me that I post that a natural attack such as a claw and unarmed strikes are two separate weapons. This game is hard to understand all of its aspects. That is one of many of the complaints of role playing games. Which is another reason most nubes play ROLL playing games. Sometimes it isn't the mechanics imvolved, it is the mechanics involved and the story. Role playing allows the player to be imvolved in the story, or being the "piece" instead of moving pieces on the board like chess, but I digrerss.

I imagine the Tengu would do the damage of the monk's unarmed strike damage instead of the claws. Whether just using unarmed strikes or the flurry, just a thought. I really don't know that one.

Good night everyone, I have stayed up too late. I will say that it is easier to use a computer than a phone. Ciao

Shadow Lodge

Taenia wrote:

Actually the Tengu trait is irrelevant. I could have done this with a Tiefling with claws and it would do the same thing.

You can freely combine natural and manufactured attacks. From the Bestiary:

Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action (although often a creature must forgo one natural attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a claw, tentacle, or slam). Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their available natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack’s original type.

In this case unarmed strike are weapons but not natural weapons as indicated by bold. Keep in mind they are getting multiple unarmed strikes through iteratives, one of the builds is 12 level with a BAB of 11.

One last note of the night, I don't much recall that the op's build used weapons other than a claw. That is why I keep talking about natural attacks and unarmed strikes.

I do remember that one of the posts mentioned the full attack sequence and using the same claw involved in that sequence. Unarmed strikes is a weapon different from a claw which is another type of weapon. I do not believe you can combine both. Like using a sword or improved unarmed strikes, I do not believe you can use the claw when you attack with a weapon, unarmed strikes or not. The rest of the attacks would be secondary attacks.

I never read that natural attacks are light weapons. If I have not replied to any posts on this issue, sorry I just didn't get around to it. I imagine it will be raised later, Night.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think you may be confused on how the OPs build works. The character build doesn't have flurry, which is part of why it can use unarmed strikes and natural attacks in a full attack routine. It is using unarmed strikes for its BAB routine and then "tacking on" the natural attacks as secondary natural attacks with the -5 to hit. As long as the unarmed strike isn't using the "limb" of the natural attack every available natural attack is available for use.

The bird can go in and wing slam/head butt/knee/elbow/whatever it decides to do (aka unarmed strike) as many times as its BAB allows and then do its claw/claw/etc. at -5 to hit as long as the natural attacks associated "limb" wasn't used. As a monk, who has special wording indicating that they can use other body parts besides fists, the bird has options.

The only thing that prevents the use of a natural attack when making a full attack via BAB, is using the limb to make an attack with a (normally manufactured) weapon. Example: If you have 2 claws on your arms with a natural attack routine of claw/claw, a BAB of 13 and a longsword... You can either claw/claw at full BAB or if you wanted to use a longsword you could swing the longsword 3 times because of your BAB and use one of the claws (the one not using the sword) at -5 as a secondary natural attack. The rules say, the limb using the sword makes using the natural attack associated with that limb "unavailable".

The only wrinkle that might occur, as others have said, is the feat for the claws. If they are part of the base characters form and not something that is "grown" or activated after changing shape, the polymorph school would indeed "overwrite" them. I haven't read the feat in awhile so I'd have to read it again to be sure.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:


I never have, either, but it is what the rules say.

No. It is not. It is a rules interpretation of yours. One fraught with problems.

Monk Class description, subheading Unarmed Strike wrote:
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.
The text of the class ability specifically states that Monk Unarmed Strikes do indeed count as Natural Weapons sometimes. And the wording of the ability allows for Monk Unarmed Strikes to count as natural weapons not only for the purposes of receiving benefits, but also for the purpose of granting benefits.

So if it happens sometimes it must always happen? That's utter nonsense.

The monks unarmed strike is not what's being changed by the status as unarmed strike or manufactured weapon: the monks natural attacks are. Nothing there allows the monks unarmed strikes, which use the rules for manufactured weapons, to keep his natural attacks from becomming secondary. Becoming secondary is something that happens to the natural attacks, they're not remotely covered by anything that applies to the monk unarmed strike.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Beautiful, original build idea.

If Aspect of the Beast is not a workable option for claws, 2 Levels of Urban Barbarian grows you claws while raging and further boosts dex. You'll probably need to take an extra rage or two to have enough rounds for the day.

Alternatively, outside of PFS, a few levels of primal hunter with a dead companion will allow you to grow a metric ton of natural attacks.


@BigNorseWolf (the "Reply" button seems to be glitchy):

My interpretation is the literal interpretation of the text. People have been imagining a limitation that is not there. Sticking your head in the sand and calling the rules of the game utter nonsense does not change the facts, and you have not begun to argue against my point.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
So if it happens sometimes it must always happen? That's utter nonsense.

I did not say it always happens. You have not demonstrated that that is anything like a reasonable interpretation of anything I said. Come up with a real argument supported by real evidence next time.

Look, it is still the Monks' Unarmed Strikes that are being changed, in more ways than one. For instance, they are evidently being changed so that using them does not interfere so much with the normal action of your other attacks.

I'm just going by the rules as written. A Monk Unarmed Strike counts as a natural weapon for the purposes of effects that improve natural weapons. That's what the rule says.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
yours... fraught with problems.

Well, what problems? Show us the problems.

151 to 200 of 721 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / The Songbird of Doom: A Guide to a most unlikely tank and Mechanism of Mass Destruction (Warning: GMs will hate you) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.