| 45 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey all!
A few years ago, I asked the following question, and after some FAQ clickage, it was marked as answered in the FAQ. Except, I don't see it in the FAQ. The question was born from questions about the tentacle discovery of the alchemist, and there is this FAQ, but it doesn't answer the main question I had, and one that comes up often enough. So, I am reposting the question and asking that others click the FAQ button. The main question is posted below, with some edits to make it less reliant on temporal context.
How do natural attacks an unarmed attacks interact for purposes of number of attacks per round?
We see Sean here trying to explain how this works.
And yes, the rules say that if you're using a manufactured weapon or unarmed strikes, you CAN use them in conjunction with natural attacks, "so long as a different limb is used for each attack."
The intent of that was to allow you wield a 1H weapon and make a secondary claw attack with your other hand, or to let you wield a 1H weapon and make a secondary bite attack with your mouth, or to let you wield a 2H weapon and make a secondary bite attack with your mouth.
The intent was to prevent you from making a full attack sequence with your natural attacks and a bunch of unarmed strikes by specifically defining your undefined unarmed strikes as conveniently different limbs than your natural attacks. Which is exactly what you're trying to do.
(Emphasis his)
There are more posts in there going over it, but that's the main one.
The questions I have boil down to:
Does using natural attacks use up potential unarmed strikes? Can you make full attack with natural attacks and then use unarmed strikes in the same round? If so, under what circumstances? (Is it fine if you use tail whips as your natural attacks, but not fine if you use claw attacks?)
I think this would be a fine candidate for a new FAQ entry, as it seems to rely on an understanding most of us don't have, similar to the THF / TWF issue that came up in the past.
So, most wonderful and level-headed of people, please hit the FAQ button here so that perhaps we can finally lay this one to rest.
Cheers!
Does using natural attacks use up potential unarmed strikes?: "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)." So, no. Unarmed strikes are weapon attacks and can be used at the same time as natural attacks as long as you aren't using an attack that requires the same limb.
Can you make full attack with natural attacks and then use unarmed strikes in the same round?: Yes. The quote above says just that. "Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action"
If so, under what circumstances?: Again, it's in the first quote. "although often a creature must forgo one natural attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a claw, tentacle, or slam".
So this is quite literally already explained in the books. Just read the whole natural weapon section here: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/universalMonsterRules.html#natu ral-attacks-by-size
As to Sean's post, I'm not sure what he's getting at. The whole point of unarmed strikes and other non-held weapons is that they do not require an arm. Would it seem odd that you can take your full attack with spiked armor or blade boots? How is an unarmed kick different? You aren't required to select an arm for unarmed strikes.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right, but if I recall correctly, it sounded like Jason had a different idea of how it worked, and the text wasn't entirely clear on that.
Hence the FAQ request.
so for discussion we have Angryclaw McBiterson
he is a dwarf with claws and a bite who likes drinking and headbutting things
McBiterson has full BAB progression and is now level 6, so he has just gotten his first iterative attack
lets say he makes a full attack
what combination of headbutts, claw attacks and bites would he have, on a full round action, since of course he only uses his unarmed strikes as headbutts?
we have the tengu kick/kick/claw/claw/bite, this works. So unless they go and change what's currently working and say that a claw attack uses a metaphorical hand I don't think there's a problem.
I am not seeing the confusion here and I am not being snarky. What is not being understood?
Right, but if I recall correctly, it sounded like Jason had a different idea of how it worked, and the text wasn't entirely clear on that.
Hence the FAQ request.
I'll have to disagree. The text is very clear. If a DEV wants to change the existing rule they could but it wouldn't change what the rule says now.
To be clear, the rules clearly allow combining natural and unarmed attacks as long as you aren't using the same limb for both. As Chess Pwn said, that Tengu can kick/kick/claw/claw/bite and it's totally, 100% legal and is following the rules I posted from the bestiary.
Cheapy: I'd ask you to post any rules quote from any book that would make you think that what I've said isn't the case. And why couldn't you, for instance, replace unarmed strikes with armored spikes? I'm not seeing anything to indicate it does anything other than what's clearly printed.
EDIT: From Sean from the 'Alchemist "Vestigial Arm" discovery question' after the FAQ. Looking through that thread, it seems that he's saying something different that your quote of his. http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mer7?Alchemist-Vestigial-Arm-discovery-questio n
"Except I'm not wrong. I got a consensus of the rest of the design team, I wrote the FAQ in question, and I posted it using the PDT account.
Your idea of "You can't attack with more than two arms out of any combination of arms and vestigial arms" isn't in the rules anywhere, and it's not an idea the design team supports."
And
"It's number of attacks. It's not tracking natural attacks vs. manufactured weapon attacks.
As the FAQ says: "The exact same restrictions would apply if your race had claws or you had some other ability to add claws to your limbs: the text of both discoveries says they do not give you any extra attacks per round, whether used as natural weapons, wielding manufactured weapons, or adding natural weapons to a limb that didn't originally have natural weapons."
Nothing in that says you need to be tracking what type of weapon you're making an attack with."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am not seeing the confusion here and I am not being snarky. What is not being understood?
My take is that Sean's post seems to imply that when you make an unarmed strike, it uses your metaphysical hand slot. If you make two unarmed strikes, then it uses up both slots.
If you make a natural attack, it also uses up said metaphysical hand slot (unless it is a bite).
So a Tengu Fighter can't use kick/kick/claw/claw/bite because the two claws and the two kicks use up the two metaphysical hand slots the fighter possesses. Kick/kick/bite, kick/claw/bite, or claw/claw/bite are all legal. At least that's what I'm gathering from this.
If this is how it's intended to be, it needs to be FAQ'd and clarified as I'd always assumed that you could make natural attacks in addition to unarmed strikes as long as you used different limbs (unless you are doing a Flurry). So the kick/kick/claw/claw/bite would be a legal combination.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I tracked down Sean's post in it's entirety and it does basically say you have two metaphysical hand slots to attack with. It's not stated in the rules, but it's the assumption that the rules are based off of.
When you throw in natural attacks, it gets more complicated because it starts defining SOME of your specific attack locations, and yet it continues to hand-wave the nature of the rest of your attacks. So you start thinking, "I now have two claws, and it makes sense that I can't make 2 claw attacks AND 2 punches in the same round because I'd be using each arm twice, but before I had these claws I was able to make punches OR kicks, so why is it that now that I have claws, I can't also make kicks in the same round? Did my legs suddenly stop working because I got claws?"
The answer is no, your legs didn't stop working, but you're still running up against the game's assumption that you're making up to two attacks per round using TWF. And you are making two attacks per round: 2 claw attacks. And you're doing it at a better attack bonus than you were with two (unarmed strike) punches:
punches: BAB +0, no TWF feat means main at –4, offhand at –8, for a total of main –4, offhand –8
claws: BAB +0, primary attack means no penalty, for a total of +0/+0
In fact, your claws are even better than if you had TWF, which would be at –2/–2.
You're at least +12 better overall with claws than with unarmed strikes, but that's not good enough for you, you have to stack in more.
And yes, the rules say that if you're using a manufactured weapon or unarmed strikes, you CAN use them in conjunction with natural attacks, "so long as a different limb is used for each attack."
The intent of that was to allow you wield a 1H weapon and make a secondary claw attack with your other hand, or to let you wield a 1H weapon and make a secondary bite attack with your mouth, or to let you wield a 2H weapon and make a secondary bite attack with your mouth.
The intent was to prevent you from making a full attack sequence with your natural attacks and a bunch of unarmed strikes by specifically defining your undefined unarmed strikes as conveniently different limbs than your natural attacks. Which is exactly what you're trying to do.
News flash: the game is already stacked so you're expected to win. You don't have to abuse the system to ensure it.
So can a tentacle replace as many attacks per round as you have?
Nothing anywhere in the rules says you can use a natural attack in place of multiple other attacks.
The alchemist's tentacle discovery and vestigial arm are different in that they don't grant extra attacks. So an attack with your tentacle would consume a weapon attack. But normal natural attacks don't have this problem.
|
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking as the poster who got SKR to confirm that Kick/Kick/Claw/Claw/Bite works, at level 1, I still would love this (or something) codified in the FAQ.
Especially now, in the era of "we can't know anything without an 'official' response!"
Though an FAQ on "handedness" would probably go a bit further.
FAQ'd.
I am not seeing the confusion here and I am not being snarky. What is not being understood?My take is that Sean's post seems to imply that when you make an unarmed strike, it uses your metaphysical hand slot. If you make two unarmed strikes, then it uses up both slots.
If you make a natural attack, it also uses up said metaphysical hand slot (unless it is a bite).
So a Tengu Fighter can't use kick/kick/claw/claw/bite because the two claws and the two kicks use up the two metaphysical hand slots the fighter possesses. Kick/kick/bite, kick/claw/bite, or claw/claw/bite are all legal. At least that's what I'm gathering from this.
If this is how it's intended to be, it needs to be FAQ'd and clarified as I'd always assumed that you could make natural attacks in addition to unarmed strikes as long as you used different limbs (unless you are doing a Flurry). So the kick/kick/claw/claw/bite would be a legal combination.
I had always read it as claws/hand used for non-natural attacks were not available so you could not punch and claw with the same claw/hand in the same round.
Assuming I reading you correctly we agree that only punches specifically would interfere with claw attacks, but not kicks.
After reading Sean's comment I do agree that this needs to be FAQ'd, actually erata'd, because the book does not support the intent of the design team, and I dont know of anyone that follows it. And a rule that nobody knows about, is not really much of a rule.
After reading Sean's comment I do agree that this needs to be FAQ'd, actually erata'd, because the book does not support the intent of the design team, and I dont know of anyone that follows it. And a rule that nobody knows about, is not really much of a rule.
It should also be noted that that comment was from 2012 so some time has passed since then.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After reading Sean's comment I do agree that this needs to be FAQ'd, actually erata'd, because the book does not support the intent of the design team, and I dont know of anyone that follows it. And a rule that nobody knows about, is not really much of a rule.It should also be noted that that comment was from 2012 so some time has passed since then.
But there has been no rule change, and he said he was speaking for the PDT from what I understood. Even if he was speaking only as SKR I would like to assume he understood the rules of a meeting he was a part of.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But there has been no rule change, and he said he was speaking for the PDT from what I understood. Even if he was speaking only as SKR I would like to assume he understood the rules of a meeting he was a part of.After reading Sean's comment I do agree that this needs to be FAQ'd, actually erata'd, because the book does not support the intent of the design team, and I dont know of anyone that follows it. And a rule that nobody knows about, is not really much of a rule.It should also be noted that that comment was from 2012 so some time has passed since then.
Time has passed and the team has changed. The understanding of that previous group may not match the current thinking of the new group. For all I know, SKR may have been the main driver of how that old understanding came about and fresh eyes may have pushed the understanding in a new direction. I don't think it's safe to assume that the team's thought are unchanging.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Time has passed and the team has changed. The understanding of that previous group may not match the current thinking of the new group. For all I know, SKR may have been the main driver of how that old understanding came about and fresh eyes may have pushed the understanding in a new direction. I don't think it's safe to assume that the team's thought are unchanging.But there has been no rule change, and he said he was speaking for the PDT from what I understood. Even if he was speaking only as SKR I would like to assume he understood the rules of a meeting he was a part of.After reading Sean's comment I do agree that this needs to be FAQ'd, actually erata'd, because the book does not support the intent of the design team, and I dont know of anyone that follows it. And a rule that nobody knows about, is not really much of a rule.It should also be noted that that comment was from 2012 so some time has passed since then.
So then it's a good idea to FAQ this so we can see what the intent actually is :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yea, this question originally came from the Vestigial Arm / Tentacle fiasco.
So then it's a good idea to FAQ this so we can see what the intent actually is :)Time has passed and the team has changed. The understanding of that previous group may not match the current thinking of the new group. For all I know, SKR may have been the main driver of how that old understanding came about and fresh eyes may have pushed the understanding in a new direction. I don't think it's safe to assume that the team's thought are unchanging.But there has been no rule change, and he said he was speaking for the PDT from what I understood. Even if he was speaking only as SKR I would like to assume he understood the rules of a meeting he was a part of.After reading Sean's comment I do agree that this needs to be FAQ'd, actually erata'd, because the book does not support the intent of the design team, and I dont know of anyone that follows it. And a rule that nobody knows about, is not really much of a rule.It should also be noted that that comment was from 2012 so some time has passed since then.
I'll be honest, I don't see why. The RAW is 100% clear. If the team wishes to change those rule, they can but I don't see a reason to push it along.
I don't see anything wrong.
Why would the unarmed strike be treated differently, regarding how they work with natural weapons?
Yeah, I don't see how an unarmed attack is 'cheating' but armored spikes are perfectly fine...
Wasn't that about the Vestigial Arm fiasco?
He seems to say something differently a year latter during that debate so who knows.
If the team doesn't know that the rules don't match the intention, how would they change it to match what it was meant to be?
Time has passed and the team has changed. The understanding of that previous group may not match the current thinking of the new group. For all I know, SKR may have been the main driver of how that old understanding came about and fresh eyes may have pushed the understanding in a new direction. I don't think it's safe to assume that the team's thought are unchanging.
I'll be honest, I don't see why. The RAW is 100% clear. If the team wishes to change those rule, they can but I don't see a reason to push it along.
So you are saying the intent may have changed, but we still should not FAQ it?
|
The Vestigial Arm is it's own weird thing.
You want to two-weapon fight, along with a claw/claw/bite?
Doable.
It could be unarmed strikes, or boot blades, or armor spikes and dwarven boulder helmet, or Sea-knife and barbazu beard, or any number of other combinations.
Thing is, they are all the same.
Unarmed Strike doesn't have -1 natural attack clause.
It works, it's not confusing, and I don't fully understand what the core question of what is being FAQ'd.
Is it "can you combine them?"
If so, then it's a resounding "yes".
What am I missing?
The Vestigial Arm is it's own weird thing.
You want to two-weapon fight, along with a claw/claw/bite?
Doable.
It could be unarmed strikes, or boot blades, or armor spikes and dwarven boulder helmet, or Sea-knife and barbazu beard, or any number of other combinations.
Thing is, they are all the same.
Unarmed Strike doesn't have -1 natural attack clause.
It works, it's not confusing, and I don't fully understand what the core question of what is being FAQ'd.
Is it "can you combine them?"
If so, then it's a resounding "yes".
What am I missing?
When you make iterative attacks you can not use the hand that made an iterative attack to also make a claw attack as an example.
So if unarmed strikes fall under this rule then you can kick/kick/claw/claw/bite.
You never threw a punch so those claws are legal.
-------------------------------------------------------
However according to what SKR was saying even natural attacks can take the place of metaphysical hands if unarmed strikes are involved.
Under this ruling which seems to be the intent you can Kick/kick/bite, kick/claw/bite, or claw/claw/bite, but you can not combine use any limb that could have been use for a natural attack, even if it was not actually used. That means you can not kick/kick/claw/claw/bite.
Yeah that's where it gets weird though can i boulder helmet/barbazu beard then bite/gore? Can one use 2 boot-blades then claw? I feel the no we got relates back to use of claws and vestigial arms. Because if one can use kicks or boot blades and 2 claws then using 2 short swords and claws via vestigial arms isn't technically any more attacks than i could have without them.
Yeah that's where it gets weird though can i boulder helmet/barbazu beard then bite/gore? Can one use 2 boot-blades then claw? I feel the no we got relates back to use of claws and vestigial arms. Because if one can use kicks or boot blades and 2 claws then using 2 short swords and claws via vestigial arms isn't technically any more attacks than i could have without them.
It's that the boot blade is different from short swords. one gets around the limits and the other doesn't. I feel the easiest way to figure out vestigial arms is, can I do this routine without them. If the answer is yes, then it's valid to be done with vestigial.
That gets into a whole slew of issues with what vestigal arms can do.
Can I use a sword and shield while on hand holds something? Can't do it without them so no.
Can they help reload a crossbow if my other hand is occupied? Well can't reload on handed so no.
Following that logic there isn't much they can do.
|
|
I don't find Vestigial Limbs to be relevant.
I also don't find any reason, for another series of unwritten rules, about metaphysical hands, to mess up, and confuse the easily handled written rules.
SKR's old, conflicting, and confusing unwritten meta-rules don't apply, and should not.
It functions just fine.
Is his comments the only "confusion" here?
Where is the additional evidence, that suggests it doesn't work as written?
That gets into a whole slew of issues with what vestigal arms can do.
Can I use a sword and shield while on hand holds something? Can't do it without them so no.
Can they help reload a crossbow if my other hand is occupied? Well can't reload on handed so no.
Following that logic there isn't much they can do.
Not if you take it for what I said. Is a sword and shield attack routine something someone without vestigial arms could do? Yes, so yes
Can you reload a crossbow with the same action as without vestigial arms? Yes, so yes.
I didn't say check to see if the scenario was valid for no vestigial arms, like using a greatsword and a heavy shield. But using a greatsword to attack is fine. And then you have a hand free for holding something.
So by checking to see if the attack routine is something that is valid without vestigial arms then it is valid with them. If it's not valid then I believe that it's not for vestigial arms.
I don't find Vestigial Limbs to be relevant.
I also don't find any reason, for another series of unwritten rules, about metaphysical hands, to mess up, and confuse the easily handled written rules.
SKR's old, conflicting, and confusing unwritten meta-rules don't apply, and should not.
It functions just fine.
Is his comments the only "confusion" here?
Where is the additional evidence, that suggests it doesn't work as written?
I see the vestigial arms does not apply also, but that does not make him wrong. Personally I am going to allow them to work together until an FAQ comes out that says otherwise.
What makes him right?
Nothing, really. But, he was the voice of the Design team at the time, and neither Jason or Stephen were really talking on the forums much (and they still don't).
It was basically a situation of, "In the absence of an official response, Sean's response was assumed true."
He outright stated that the intent is to not allow for one to make unarmed strikes with limbs that don't interfere with natural attacks. So you can't designate kicks for your unarmed strikes because they don't interfere with the use of claws or the bite.
Truthfully, this intent behind the design team's approach to natural attacks reveals why Monks/Brawlers can't use natural attacks with flurry. IIRC, a Monk could make natural attacks in addition to his flurry of blows in 3rd edition, something that is specifically disallowed in Pathfinder.
I just don't see why unarmed strikes would, or should, be treated any different than manufactured weapons, in regards to their interaction with natural attacks.
It creates confusing additional rules, making the unarmed strikes more difficult to work with.
Unarmed strikes aren't different. I don't know if you read Sean's post, but the intention seems to be that natural attacks take the place of your metaphysical hand slots.
So, say you have a longsword, two talons and a beak (some sort of humanoid bird monster). You can use talon/talon/beak, longsword/talon/beak, or longswod/longsword/beak. Unarmed strikes aren't unique, it's just that's the ones people are talking about.
It seems this isn't a very well understood rule that was never stated anywhere in the game. Because I see humanoid monsters mixing manufactured weapons and natural attacks all the time. However, I also recall many times, monsters (such as a giant) having an attack of something like Club +12/+7 (1d8+7) or Slam +11 (1d8+10).
So it seems the designs teams intent shows up in some of the monster stat blocks, but not in others.
There are quite a few statblocks that work against that supposed intent.
I know. I've seen many statblocks that are against that intent, but I know I've seen many that also seem to support it.
Time has passed and the team has changed. The understanding of that previous group may not match the current thinking of the new group. For all I know, SKR may have been the main driver of how that old understanding came about and fresh eyes may have pushed the understanding in a new direction. I don't think it's safe to assume that the team's thought are unchanging.I'll be honest, I don't see why. The RAW is 100% clear. If the team wishes to change those rule, they can but I don't see a reason to push it along.So you are saying the intent may have changed, but we still should not FAQ it?
Yes. What they intended doesn't really matter when the actual RAW is 100% clear. Why try to overturn actual rules for some kind of unwritten rules that only exist in the collective intent of the rules team? If this rule was somehow unclear as written, I'd say 'sure, FAQ it'. It however isn't in any way unclear.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Remember, the entire point for the written word is to communicate the intent. This is a case where there's very compelling evidence that the written word is communicating the intent poorly. But there's still a decent chance the intent is the same as the written word.
And this is trying to figure out which is the case.
Remember, the entire point for the written word is to communicate the intent. This is a case where there's very compelling evidence that the written word is communicating the intent poorly. But there's still a decent chance the intent is the same as the written word.
And this is trying to figure out which is the case.
I fear is that an FAQ on this results in another 'unwritten rule'. The last one was bad enough as I think it creates as much if not more confusion that it ever resolved. Sean's comments/posts just seem to do the same for what IMO is a clear cut rule. You get all your natural attack and weapon attack with the proviso that you don't use a limb for more than one weapon.
The only thing I think of as an issue would be thrown weapons and natural attacks. A thrown weapon doesn't use up that hand as I can draw and throw another weapon with attacks from a high BAB. SO would using Close-Quarters Thrower really use up the hand for natural weapons like claw? I understand the one limb restriction with a weapon that continues to be wielded throughout the round but that isn't the case for thrown.
Throwing and the unwritten 'hand' really don't play well together
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think most of us what to know what the rule is actually meant to do in the game. Some in PFS won't like it, and some of us can just ignore rulings we don't like, but it it still nice to know the actual intent because it can help figure out interactions with other rules.
Remember, the entire point for the written word is to communicate the intent. This is a case where there's very compelling evidence that the written word is communicating the intent poorly. But there's still a decent chance the intent is the same as the written word.
And this is trying to figure out which is the case.
Like Flurry of Blows!
Lord knows how well that turned out.
Remember, the entire point for the written word is to communicate the intent. This is a case where there's very compelling evidence that the written word is communicating the intent poorly. But there's still a decent chance the intent is the same as the written word.
And this is trying to figure out which is the case.
Like Flurry of Blows!
Lord knows how well that turned out.
Shudder
My personal feeling is that I am completely unclear what SKR's point was in the linked post. I have read that whole thread more than once and come away more confused than I went in. On the other hand I read the rules and they seem pretty clear to me.
I side pretty firmly with BBT and graystone on this one. The rules allow them to work together unless you are trying to use the same limb for both attacks. If the design team wanted to change the rules then they have had plenty of opportunity to do so since 2012.
And to be perfectly clear, I agree that this would be an actual change or errata if they were to do so. The intention is clear within the rules already. It spells it out plain and simple. Making Natural Attacks NOT work in conjunction with Unarmed Strikes would be a retraction, rules change or errata. It would not be a clarification of intent.
Since that hasn't happened, I'm sticking with RAW. Luckily in PFS they are required to stick to RAW as well. I think I would honestly prefer that a retraction, rules change or errata not happen here. Nonetheless, as there still seems to be confusion in some peoples minds about this (likely due to SKR's post which was ironically meant to quell said confusion) I hit FAQ for their benefit.
...that being said, some PFS GMs tend to have weird interpretations of what RAW means. I recently made a post regarding this very topic where I was concerned about the potential of a PFS GM ruling against Natural Attacks working with Unarmed Strikes, myself. So even though I am pretty clear on RAW and their intention sometimes it doesn't matter how clear I am as I am not the one ruling on something.
|
|
You will always have a rare PFS Judge, with a weird view of the rules.
Examples:
1) Believed one could not take a 5ft. Step if you used your Move Action for any purpose, not just to move.
2) Thought there was "50% chance" of hitting an ally, when attacking a creature grappling said ally.
3) Was under the impression that the Rogue, and only the Rogue, could use the Disable Device skill.