|
If a wolf takes Improved Unarmed Strike, how much damage does it do?I guess the question comes up... given it has a natural attack that's reasonably effective, why would a wolf take improved unarmed strike.
And frankly I'm at a loss why it would bother, even if intelligent. It already has an option to attack without provoking an AoO. It could opt to do non-lethal damage with that attack. It might get more interesting mileage out of improved grapple.
So why improved unarmed strike - from the wolf's point of view?
As has been pointed out, there any number of reasons an animal companion would want IUS. Most of them are for the following feats and have nothing specifically to do with IUS. But once the feat is taken it is an option so I wanted to know how much damage it would do.
Specifically, my wolf will be taking Vicious Stomp to go with his trip. And that goes with Paired Opportunists giving me an AoO along the way, as I have previously stated.
Any animal that is not an animal companion can take this feat. Only animal companions are limited by their intelligence scores.
The damage dealt by their unarmed strike would vary by creature size.
I've been considering a hedgehog Eldritch Guardian build using grappling and dual pummeling charge. A hedgehog would have to use unarmed strike as it doesn't have a natural attack.
If you have ever read Erin Hunter's Warriors series, the cats in the clans are trained in fighting styles unique to their clans. I see no reason a dog or wolf can't have IUS. But yeah it's medium so it does 1d3 plus STR.
Another reason is some DMs will say biting a creature with a diease or certain poisons would make you roll Fort saves. An IUS is 'safer'.
I could see a dog or wolf getting IUS to get Improved Grapple, so they can also pin opponents like real police dogs do. Also IUS lets you do nonlethal. I don't think you can do nonlethal bites, or at minimum they take the -4 to attacks like using lethal weapons in a non lethal manner.
I guess the question comes up... given it has a natural attack that's reasonably effective, why would a wolf take improved unarmed strike.
And frankly I'm at a loss why it would bother, even if intelligent. It already has an option to attack without provoking an AoO. It could opt to do non-lethal damage with that attack. It might get more interesting mileage out of improved grapple.
So why improved unarmed strike - from the wolf's point of view?
More importantly, why would wolf want to take improved unarmed strike? Care to elucidate?If I'm not mistaken, by many people's opinion/abuse of the rules, any creature that has only natural attacks gains 1 or more (depending on BAB) free attacks every round by striking with unarmed strikes (in addition to natural attacks). It will reduce the natural attacks to secondary (if they weren't already), but some even disagree with _that_ (somehow; see songbird of doom thread).
In my opinion this is blatant ignorance of RAI though, since unarmed strikes (improved or otherwise) are meant to replace attacks with a [manufactured] weapon, not give creatures free attacks.
The main issue this would come up is having a PC transforming into a wild animal, such as a druid, or a recent thread about a songbird of doom that has massive defense and deals hundreds of damage per round at just level 11, and still a ton of damage at levels as low as 4 or 5.
Whether it's a tiger or a songbird, it makes no sense to me whatsoever for creatures to be able to unarmed strike in addition to natural attacks if such a creature can't normally use [manufactured] weapons.
I think you are putting too much in to that one mate. There is no doubt that unarmed attacks can be used with natural attacks. And most animals that try to stack the two are not gonna gain by it. I get that you dont like the song bird but that build( and i like it) is based on using a totally broken magic item in the first place so that is hardly Somthing you can blame on Karate Wolf and Kung Fu Panda.
I guess the question comes up... given it has a natural attack that's reasonably effective, why would a wolf take improved unarmed strike.
And frankly I'm at a loss why it would bother, even if intelligent. It already has an option to attack without provoking an AoO. It could opt to do non-lethal damage with that attack. It might get more interesting mileage out of improved grapple.
So why improved unarmed strike - from the wolf's point of view?
More importantly, why would wolf want to take improved unarmed strike? Care to elucidate?If I'm not mistaken, by many people's opinion/abuse of the rules, any creature that has only natural attacks gains 1 or more (depending on BAB) free attacks every round by striking with unarmed strikes (in addition to natural attacks). It will reduce the natural attacks to secondary (if they weren't already), but some even disagree with _that_ (somehow; see songbird of doom thread).
In my opinion this is blatant ignorance of RAI though, since unarmed strikes (improved or otherwise) are meant to replace attacks with a [manufactured] weapon, not give creatures free attacks.
The main issue this would come up is having a PC transforming into a wild animal, such as a druid, or a recent thread about a songbird of doom that has massive defense and deals hundreds of damage per round at just level 11, and still a ton of damage at levels as low as 4 or 5.
Whether it's a tiger or a songbird, it makes no sense to me whatsoever for creatures to be able to unarmed strike in addition to natural attacks if such a creature can't normally use [manufactured] weapons.
So let me see if I understand you. A half-orc that gains a bite attack loses the ability to punch. Right?
Perhaps allowing a wolf to box you for 1d3 and iteratives (and biting at -5 to hit) is a tradeoff for letting it have another feat. Yes, you're giving it another attack, just like that tusky orc. At a cost of doing other stuff. Woody the Wolf isn't biting as a large wolf, or doing whatever other neat tricks it can. Aside from leaving some poor creature the reputation of being knocked out by a wolf punch.
Never, ever forget opportunity costs. Unless that wolf's taking levels in fighter, it's not getting a feat a level ...
|
|
I'm not convinced that getting the extra attack and demoting bite to secondary is worth it either.[/i]It's not. If you read the thread you'll see numerous other reasons why an a wolf (or any animal companion) would want IUS.Yes, as I acknowledged in the part of my edit that you snipped, there are lots of reasons why a wolf might want to take IUS. Still not seeing a lot of reasons why a wolf would actually want to use it. Did I miss a post?
_
glass.
Specifically, my wolf will be taking Vicious Stomp to go with his trip. And that goes with Paired Opportunists giving me an AoO along the way, as I have previously stated.
|
Thanks, this is the kind of attitude I assumed I'd get when I started the topic.The OP asks what the damage would be IF a wolf took IUS...It did not ask if a wolf could take IUS or not. For the purpose of the discussion, just assume that a wolf can take IUS and continue on.
But... this is the internet! If something can be debated - it will be! (At least it was relatively civil in this case.)
|
Any creature with a physical body can use an unarmed strike. Any creature with an Int of 3 or more can take the feat improved unarmed strike.
If the animal is not sentient, it may require teaching it a trick to use it. Similar to how it requires a trick for a horses hooves to be considered primary instead of secondary.
As a guy who owns three large dogs, which is anatomically similar to a wolf if you ask me, I've witnessed them use not only chest bumps but also paw swipes when playing, they are anatomically capable of doing this.
The damage doesn't upgrade the bite, it gets normal UAS damage
So let me see if I understand you. A half-orc that gains a bite attack loses the ability to punch. Right?How could you not understand what I said? It was pretty clear. I was talking about any creature that cannot use manufactured weapons. Nothing about creatures that happen to have natural attacks as well. Half orcs can very clearly use manufactured weapons.
If one pilfers the bestiary there can be gray areas, but then the DM can decide whether that creature has the sufficient capability to use a weapon.
What is the actual rule about manufactured weapons that you think applies?
Any creature with a physical body can use an unarmed strike. Any creature with an Int of 3 or more can take the feat improved unarmed strike.
Last I checked, having an Intelligence score of 3 or higher wasn't a prerequisite of the feat.
Any creature with a physical body can use an unarmed strike. Any creature with an Int of 3 or more can take the feat improved unarmed strike.Last I checked, having an Intelligence score of 3 or higher wasn't a prerequisite of the feat.
Animal companions have the requirement.
Animal companions with an Intelligence of 3 or higher can select any feat they are physically capable of using. GMs might expand this list to include feats from other sources.
I believe it was stated that the character was planning to have the companion take it for tripping feat line.
Why is anyone saying it can't be done? It obviously CAN be done. Giving the wolf Diefic obedience wouldn't work, but IUAS should be fine
And ONLY animal companions bear such a requirement. It has absolutely no effect on traditional animals.
And ONLY animal companions bear such a requirement. It has absolutely no effect on traditional animals.
The only way to alter feat selection is with GMs consent, or the GM advancing the animal beyond the base creature. As a player you are stuck with the base animal as is, in the book.
In not sure what your point is in regards to. The GM can alter creatures willy nilly as wanted. As a player, you don't have that option.
Last I checked, having an Intelligence score of 3 or higher wasn't a prerequisite of the feat.
The only way to alter feat selection is with GM's consent, or the GM advancing the animal beyond the base creature. As a player you are stuck with the base animal as is, in the book.
Please quote the rule that supports your claim. Animals and monsters are no more cookie cutter clones of one another than the PCs are (the stat blocks in the Bestiaries are written out the way they are for convenience, not as a hard rule that they must all be the same).
There is absolutely no reason why a PC couldn't shop around for an especially alert breed of canine (Skill Focus: Perception) or a specially trained war mount (martial weapon proficiency: armor spikes).
And technically the GM could put the axe to whatever he wanted; that doesn't make it a rule.
The only way to alter feat selection is with GM's consent, or the GM advancing the animal beyond the base creature. As a player you are stuck with the base animal as is, in the book.Please quote the rule that supports your claim. Animals and monsters are no more cookie cutter clones of one another than the PCs are (the stat blocks in the Bestiaries are written out the way they are for convenience, not as a hard rule that they must all be the same).
There is absolutely no reason why a PC couldn't shop around for an especially alert breed of canine (Skill Focus: Perception) or a specially trained war mount (martial weapon proficiency: armor spikes).
And technically the GM could put the axe to whatever he wanted; that doesn't make it a rule.
All you have to do is look at this FAQ:
"Handle Animal: Does training an animal using Handle Animal to be Combat Trained (pg 98 in the Core Rulebook) grant it Light Armor Proficiency?
No, using Handle Animal to train an animal, or mount, in this way does not grant it a free bonus feat. It is not unreasonable, however to assume that an animal specifically designed to be ridden (such as a horse or dog) could be purchased with Light Armor Proficiency as one of its feats (swapping out Endurance or Skill Focus respectively) for the same cost."
So it's reasonable to buy animals that have different feats than those listed AND normal animals can learn feats than animal companions can't.
Just a side note but. If a wolf did take IUS and used it in an attack, they would suffer a non proficiency penalty if they did not also take simple weapon proficiency as a feat.
Also, a would could just make an unarmed attack normally, they would just be eating a -6 to attack and deal nonlethal.
All the feat does is affect damage.
All characters are proficient with unarmed strikes and any natural weapons possessed by their race.