The Interaction Between Unarmed Strikes and Natural Attacks


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 114 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

blackbloodtroll wrote:

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.

Some people still coming from 3.5 are still used to the old rules. Other had GM's with houserules, but they never knew the GM was using houserules. Some are also relatively new to the game.

If the person is open to corrections then its not that bad, but if you have that person who sees everything as a personal attack then it can be a problem.

I had a GM like that before.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Yeah, if it's not a big deal, I usually wait until a break, or after game to say something.

Some people do see corrections, as personal attacks. It is sad.

When I run, and a player has a rules disagreement, I usually check if I can handle it quickly, or I will say "okay, I am going to run it like this, but I will check the rules on the next break."

The only time I get really irked, as a DM, is when I have to rule on a grey area, and I get a "Well, <insert name of other judge here> doesn't run it like that!".


The biggest issue I have somewhat related to this is creatures that can't normally use unarmed strikes that aren't their given natural attacks performing natural attacks.
The attacks are listed for that creature, and they don't get extra ones just because they're intelligent or inhabited by a PC.

Is anyone with me on this? Many people seem to say that the rules will let such creatures gain iterative unarmed attacks to go with their natural attacks, but I don't see how that is logical or balanced regardless of the rules.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Replace unarmed strikes, with any other non-natural weapon.

Now, does it offend you?


All creatures can use iterative-based unarmed strikes. Usually, this is a poor choice for the creature, but not always.

Just because a creature's stat block doesn't specifically list this option doesn't mean it's not possible for them to use it if they desire.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Joesi wrote:

The biggest issue I have somewhat related to this is creatures that can't normally use unarmed strikes that aren't their given natural attacks performing natural attacks.

The attacks are listed for that creature, and they don't get extra ones just because they're intelligent or inhabited by a PC.

Is anyone with me on this? Many people seem to say that the rules will let such creatures gain iterative unarmed attacks to go with their natural attacks, but I don't see how that is logical or balanced regardless of the rules.

People can already make iterative attacks with weapons and still get their natural attacks. They just don't get the slam and claw attacks if those appendage was used to wield a weapon, but wings, tentacles, bites, and so on are still available. All the monk is doing is bypass the claw and slam restriction by not punching anyone.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Byakko wrote:

All creatures can use iterative-based unarmed strikes. Usually, this is a poor choice for the creature, but not always.

Just because a creature's stat block doesn't specifically list this option doesn't mean it's not possible for them to use it if they desire.

I can't agree with the all part, I'm not seeing low intelligent creatures doing that.

I do agree with the second, but usually these lines are omitted because it wouldn't be an advantage to us them (provoking etc.)


Just to be clear I am speaking of non-FoB attacks rolls and natural attacks. FoB specifically says no natural attacks.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

wraithstrike wrote:
Just to be clear I am speaking of non-FoB attacks rolls and natural attacks. FoB specifically says no natural attacks.

That is true. I missed that being mentioned. I answered considering no FoB in the equation.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Replace unarmed strikes, with any other non-natural weapon.

Now, does it offend you?

No that's my whole point. Creatures that can't use weapons are more powerful to compensate for the fact that they typically cannot or won't use unarmed strikes and can't use [manufactured] weapons. It makes them too strong when they do add their iterative attacks to it. That aside, it's often quite unrealistic that they could even perform an attack with a limb that isn't being used for a natural attack.

wraithstrike wrote:
People can already make iterative attacks with weapons and still get their natural attacks. They just don't get the slam and claw attacks if those appendage was used to wield a weapon, but wings, tentacles, bites, and so on are still available. All the monk is doing is bypass the claw and slam restriction by not punching anyone.

I know that already. The thing is one can always find some sort of part of body to use to make iterative attacks separate from the natural attacks. In fact, that's what I take issue with. Creatures that have their given natural attacks only ever attack with such natural attacks, and it makes no sense that they could start using other parts (ears, tail, feet, fins, wings) when nowhere does it specify that they can do that, nor that the fin or tail is at all sturdy or prehensile enough to do so, or that the creature (lets say quadruped) has the physical ability to kick/scratch with it's hind legs while facing the target.

My point is that creatures that generally don't have the ability to perform iterative attacks are balanced around that, as well as the fact that too often it doesn't make sense for that creature to be attacking with certain limbs.

I don't consider it possible for a tiger to be able to kick while it's standing up, nor tail swipe (obviously). In addition, even when it comes to trading one natural attack for a whole set of iteratives, it doesn't seem balanced or particularly realistic.


I'd think the body of a human is much less suited to performing unarmed strikes than most animals'. It's not like we have a particularly strong or flexible body. What sets us apart are our opposable thumbs (which while otherwise useful, don't seem that big of a deal when it comes to strikes with the body) and our intelligence.

This difference in intelligence is likely the key factor which causes most animals to only use their natural attacks. They aren't clever enough to train and learn to use their bodies in more creative ways, even if it is conceivably possible to do so.

How about more intelligent creatures? Ultimately, there's only so much space in each monster's stat block. It's just not realistic to enumerate every single option available to a creature. Also, keep in mind that many monsters are likely somewhat of a copy and paste job, taken from days before Pathfinder's unarmed strike rules were solidified.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

So, stupid creatures attack as their instinctual prerogative moves them.

That means, they prefer natural attacks, without unarmed strikes.

This slippery slope nonsense is no reason to change the rules.

The Half-Orc with a bite, suddenly shouldn't be unable to kick.

There is no great balance issue.

There is no confusion.

There is only a few, who advocate disastrous rule changes, and have no reasonable solutions, to the nonexistent problems.


Who's suggesting changing the rules? Not I.

All creatures can use unarmed strikes, if they so choose to do so.

I was explaining why most animals don't use unarmed strikes in real life, as that seemed to be the focus of Joesi's complaint.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

If you were not suggesting rules change, then I was not referring to you.


Ah, fair enough. Sometimes it's hard to tell. :)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

If unarmed strikes are are being used with natural attacks, then it's usually one of the listed situations:

1) It's a PC with Natural Attacks.

2) It's a specially built Mount/Companion/Familiar/Eidolon.

3) It's a specially built, unique monster.

4) The DM is being a jerk, and having dumb monsters, do crazy things.

5) The player is being a jerk, and is trying to have a dumb Mount/Companion do crazy things.

Now, in all those situations listed, the rules, are not the problem, and for 3 out 5 of them, there is no problem.

What is left to be asked?

What is left to be debated?


Byakko: I think BBT was mostly referring to Joesi and those who may share an opinion with him (if there are any?). You and BBT (and myself and many others here at least) seem to be of the same opinion.

I have made a couple of posts on this topic recently and have resolved myself to the fact that the rules are on my side. It outright says that you can use Unarmed Strikes with Natural Attacks. Despite several year old posts and ample opportunities to give errata or change rules that are printed this has not been done. This leads me to believe that the rules in the book are the intended rules. Even if someone has a different opinion on what was intended it still doesn't matter. The rules are what is printed and that is what is followed in the overwhelming majority of home games and PFS.

In short: the rules say it works. So it works. People wanting to debate whether or not it works can argue with the Devs to try to institute a rules change if they'd like. But it would necessitate an actual change as status quo is that it works.

People who just want to complain about the fact that it works... well, I don't care. To me this stems from a lack of imagination. There are far more fantastic things that happen in Pathfinder than a bear throwing a roundhouse.


I think SKR is right. If you use all your eligible attacks, be it claw/claw/bite, MH/OH/bite, 2H/bite or wtv, you shouldn't be able to throw a couple of extra kicks just because you're not using your claws to do it, just like you shouldn't be able to make a couple of extra stabs with two boot knives just for wearing them. However, this can be a bit complex for most players, and when SKR tried to clarify this, not only he wasn't very clear, but he also probably didn't expect his post to be dissected, word by word, for years to come.

The rules conflict with the intent. The statement "so long as a different limb is used for each attack" is inaccurate. As Graystone pointed out, it should not be a problem to throw a dagger with a claw and then attack with the same claw. Likewise, it should be no problem to strike with a weapon and to punch or elbow with that same limb. The statement was probably written thinking of someone with a claw holding a melee weapon, trying to prevent this someone from making both the full weapon routine attacks and the full claws natural attacks, but it missed the point. The point is, beside saying you can't do "impossible" things, like attacking with a claw while it's busy holding something, you can make your attacks in any combination you want, as long as you don't exceed your eligible number of attacks. There's nothing stoping you from making a claw attack with the same claw you used to attack with a sword, as long as you drop the sword before you attack with the claw.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

There is no, and should be no, difference between bite/dagger/dagger, and bite/kick/kick.

Throwing the metaphorical hands pseudolimiter, into the mix with natural attack rules, is just a disastrous idea.


Odd, this is the very first time that I have ever seen BBT post this emphatically in order to try and talk people out of clicking an FAQ button.

Just an observation.

Carry on.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

It's happened before.


Check most threads regarding this issue he is a staunch kicking rights advocate.


Same here. There is absolutely nothing in the rules stating that they cannot be combined.

An old post by a Dev giving "clarification" on the rules doesn't fly here. If that is the way the rules work Paizo has had ample opportunity to change the rules. And it would be a change because the existing rules allow it.

Saying, "The statement 'so long as a different limb is used for each attack' is inaccurate." is, in and of itself, not accurate. The book's rules are accurate. And if they are not then they have the opportunity to change them. Oh, they haven't changed the rules? Good. No FAQ needed.


Bump


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Why in Cosmo's name would you bump a post after 6 hours of inactivity?


Mostly because I have never bumped a post before in my life and I desired the experience enough to do so.

Did I break some rule?


Weslocke wrote:

Mostly because I have never bumped a post before in my life and I desired the experience enough to do so.

Did I break some rule?

Probably. Somewhere. Also, I think 3 kittens died because of it.


Tels wrote:
Weslocke wrote:

Mostly because I have never bumped a post before in my life and I desired the experience enough to do so.

Did I break some rule?

Probably. Somewhere. Also, I think 3 kittens died because of it.

As long as my grievous infraction of board protocol did not destroy the entire internet then I am sure it will eventually be forgotten. :)

Sorry about those kittens though. I have seven cats myself. If you will let their owners know to contact me I can hook them up. Free even.

Just out of curiosity, what is an acceptable amount of time of inactivity before bumping a thread?


Weslocke wrote:
Tels wrote:
Weslocke wrote:

Mostly because I have never bumped a post before in my life and I desired the experience enough to do so.

Did I break some rule?

Probably. Somewhere. Also, I think 3 kittens died because of it.

As long as my grievous infraction of board protocol did not destroy the entire internet then I am sure it will eventually be forgotten. :)

Sorry about those kittens though. I have seven cats myself. If you will let their owners know to contact me I can hook them up. Free even.

Just out of curiosity, what is an acceptable amount of time of inactivity before bumping a thread?

Depends on the forum and how often the thread in question gets bumped off the sub-forums first page. For Paizo, you're usually good on waiting to bump a thread 3-4 days to a week later.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Weslocke wrote:
Tels wrote:
Weslocke wrote:
Did I break some rule?
Probably. Somewhere. Also, I think 3 kittens died because of it.

As long as my grievous infraction of board protocol did not destroy the entire internet then I am sure it will eventually be forgotten. :)

Sorry about those kittens though. I have seven cats myself. If you will let their owners know to contact me I can hook them up. Free even.

Just out of curiosity, what is an acceptable amount of time of inactivity before bumping a thread?

It's more a concept of respect.

This isn't just an anonymous forum, it's a community of real people that ask and answer questions and engage in a dialog with one another.

When you bump a thread you're telling other posters that you think your topic is more important than theirs. When you do it repeatedly others may begin to view you in a negative light. It's respectful to keep in mind that everyone's question is equally as valid and important as yours.

Bumping doesn't contribute anything to the discussion. Imagine if everyone constantly bumped their own thread every 6 hours. If there's a stalemate in the dialog, adding the word "Bump" does nothing to remedy that. If you want to further the discussion, ask another question, or research and post some new evidence. If all you have to contribute is "bump", it can come off as being lazy, since you're essentially asking other people to do the work for you.

Especially regarding this topic, which has generated thousands of comments and many threads in just the last few years. Many of us were a part of those discussions. "Bumping" is not going to encourage us to say anything we haven't already said in the past.

So, if this was your first "bump" in your life, I can't think of a better time to quit =)


No, YOU aren't contributing anything to the conversation.

...bump.
;)


Another problem is the "2 claw attacks" thing. A player with 2 claws that chooses to make unarmed attacks and use the claws as secondary weapons gains not only 1, but 2 extra attacks.

Every regular player is "given" 2 arms, MH/OH. I think the 2 claw attacks are supposed to be equivalent to the 2 arms of a regular player. In D&D 3.5, monster have only one type of primary attack, which is kind of equivalent to the primary 2 arms every players has. Extra attacks are secondary, used in conjunction with the primary at -5 penalty, just like you would add secondary attacks to a players primary 2 arms attacks.

What I mean by this is that, when the 2 claws are considered the only primary attack of the creature/player, they should not be used as secondary attacks.

What makes this hard is that sometimes the 2 claw are not the main attack, like a Lion with a nasty bite and 2 lesser claw attacks. In this case, the claw attacks are like special extra minor attacks, like a special ability or a tail attack. Ind D&D 3.5, these were considered secondary attacks, but in PF they made all claws count as primary attacks, which complicate things.


I think you put the quoties around the wrong words. It clearly belongs around the word "problem". It is only a problem if you perceive it as such and I definitely belong to the group who does not.

Martials in general are frequently beat with a nerf stick and Monks specifically get the short end of that stick. Allowing martials who use manufactured weapons to get full iterative plus all natural attacks (minus any limbs used to make said iteratives) but not giving Monks (or any character using Improved Unarmed Strikes) the same opportunity seems shortsighted, unnecessarily unfair, and like transparently purposeful childish Monk-hate.

...and for what? Some perceived "problem"? I do not see what problem this can cause for an unarmed striker that is not also caused with a manufactured weapon user. I really would love to quash this debate. It would be better to bring it back on track to something that at least potentially hurts ALL martials rather than just the Unarmed Strikers. Gosh, that was actually hard to say.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

*imagines a world where people don't interject their perceptions of a martial/caster disparity into rules discussions*


*imagines a world where people can go to a forum and share their opinion on a topic without being told by other posters that you have some kind of thread superiority complex for bumping a thread by pretend thread police or think that a topic may have a part in the martial/caster disparity by someone who was only just recently advocating engaging in dialog with one another*

If you are going to attack me for what I say please attack the content, not my right to say it. If you would like to have some actual discourse on my points I welcome it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lune wrote:

*imagines a world where people can go to a forum and share their opinion on a topic without being told by other posters that you have some kind of thread superiority complex for bumping a thread by pretend thread police or think that a topic may have a part in the martial/caster disparity by someone who was only just recently advocating engaging in dialog with one another*

If you are going to attack me for what I say please attack the content, not my right to say it. If you would like to have some actual discourse on my points I welcome it.

I'll reply to this so we can keep the thread going.

The way I see is this, every player is entitle to:

BAB 0-5: 1 attack
BAB 6-10: 2 attacks
BAB 11-15: 3 attacks
BAB 16-20: 4 attacks

You can choose to attack with a 2H weapon for more damage or with a 1H weapon and use a shield for more AC, or use the other arm for something else.

You can choose to TWF, but the penalties are horrible unless you have the TWF feat. So we have:

BAB 0-5 + 1 Feat: 1 attack +1 extra off-hand attack (-2 penalty to these attacks)
BAB 6-10 + 2 Feats: 2 attacks +2 extra off-hand attacks (-2 penalty to these attacks)
BAB 11-15 + 3 Feats: 3 attacks +3 extra off-hand attacks (-2 penalty to these attacks)
So, basicaly, you are spending a feat to get an extra off-hand attack, and you can do that 3 times.

If you have "Special Ability: Bite", you can do all of the above attacks, plus another extra Bite attack at -5 penalty to attack.

Now, if your race has 2 claws instead of hands, you can make all of the above attacks OR you can:

BAB 0-20: 2 claw attacks (No penalty to these attacks)

Alegendly, the 2 claw attacks should be equivalent to a regular player's weapon attacks.

I think, if a player wants to attack with one 1H weapon and a claw, the claw should "eat up" the off-hand attacks. This way, the players who have the "Special Ability: Claws" will be able to make one extra attack, equivalent to if they had spent one feat on TWF.

But if the players wants to make a full attack with a 2H weapon or TWF, I'm sorry, but in these cases the claws would just be wasted, just as would any Bow feats the character may have while he's not using a bow.

All that I said should work the same way for both weapons and unarmed strikes. So, if you can't make extra claw attacks if you are using weapons, you also can't make them when you use unarmed strikes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Kchaka, the issue with that is that's not how the game works. A creature with just a bite just gets that bite. And I can make a PC with a gore, bite, claw, claw, hoof, hook, tail, wing, wing attacks. Your attack limits just aren't there. You can make a tiefling that can claw, claw, bite, kick, kick at 1st. Or a skinwalker with a two handed weapon along with their hoof, hoof, gore at first. [all with different limbs]

Now if you're saying that's how you run it, more power to you. It's more reading into the intent than I'd do. I only alter the rules when they break something.


I agree with graystone whole heartedly. Your opinion (Kchaka), is fine for a house rule. But that is not the way that the rules are written.

But, at least after your clarification you are being even handed in your house rules; not giving manufactured weapon users an edge over unarmed strikers.


Byakko wrote:

All creatures can use iterative-based unarmed strikes. Usually, this is a poor choice for the creature, but not always.

Just because a creature's stat block doesn't specifically list this option doesn't mean it's not possible for them to use it if they desire.

Does that mean a greater shadow can unarmed strike people and drain strength multiple times?


Rikkan wrote:
Byakko wrote:

All creatures can use iterative-based unarmed strikes. Usually, this is a poor choice for the creature, but not always.

Just because a creature's stat block doesn't specifically list this option doesn't mean it's not possible for them to use it if they desire.

Does that mean a greater shadow can unarmed strike people and drain strength multiple times?

No. The rules only give him that drain/damage for his touch attack. They don't say every attack that touches activates the rider affect.

Also the rules specifically say flurry of blows from a monk, can not be combined with natural attacks. If a monk does not use FoB, then he can do both.


wraithstrike wrote:
No. The rules only give him that drain/damage for his touch attack. They don't say every attack that touches activates the rider affect.
Actually:
prd wrote:
A greater shadow's touch deals 1d8 points of Strength damage to a living creature.

its touch deal strength damage.


Monsters advance in size/HD. A few (maybe more than a few) can take levels in "classes". Choose what type of creature you want to play. It seems the more we blur the lines here, the more problems there will be. Monsters attack as monsters, with their "natural" or "instinctual" weapons. PC's taking classes attack with weapons (natural or manufactured) that they train with i.e. get better as they gain levels through training/improvement. Trying to gain an extra attack per round by sprouting an extra limb, or having a clawed hand, 4 arms like Wolverine, or headbutting etc. is not what the intent of the rules was/should be. If you want your chracter to be attacking as a "monster" advance them in their "natural" progression of hit dice/size. I completely agree with what Kchaka posted. A character gets a number of attacks per round based on advancement in levels, "monsters" get a number of attacks per round based on their physical bodies/instinct. Any attempt to blend these two seperate progressions is aberrant.


The question of the interaction between unarmed and natural attacks isn't one that you have to get very complicated to come up. You don't have to go beyond CORE and it could come up with a Monk 1/Druid 4. Or anyone assuming the form of a creature by any means and then using the Improved Unarmed Strike feat they have in conjunction with natural attacks. Or a Draconic blooded Sorcerer 1 that takes Improved Unarmed Strike and wants to Claw/Claw/Kick. The topic can come up with a pretty basic Core character with no need of "blurring the lines". Saying that it wasn't the "what the intent of the rules was/should be" couldn't be further from the truth. There are several characters who are designed to use natural attacks and unarmed strikes.

I'm sorry, Darkrist. I can't agree with a single thing you said there. This is something that can happen from the earliest levels and from only Core material. It is something that is covered in the base rules as well. While I do not blame Cheapy for posting the question here (mostly due to SKR's old contrary post being confusing when referencing the RAW), the actual printed rules on how this is handled are clear. They are not "aberrant" at all.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Rikkan wrote:
its touch deal strength damage.

Yes, it's touch:

Quote:

Melee incorporeal touch +4 (1d6 Strength damage)

Strength Damage (Su) A shadow's touch deals 1d6 points of Strength damage to a living creature. This is a negative energy effect. A creature dies if this Strength damage equals or exceeds its actual Strength score.

It's unarmed strike doesn't deal anything unless you are wearing ghost touch armor, because it's unarmed strike would pass right through you.


Lune wrote:

The question of the interaction between unarmed and natural attacks isn't one that you have to get very complicated to come up. You don't have to go beyond CORE and it could come up with a Monk 1/Druid 4. Or anyone assuming the form of a creature by any means and then using the Improved Unarmed Strike feat they have in conjunction with natural attacks. Or a Draconic blooded Sorcerer 1 that takes Improved Unarmed Strike and wants to Claw/Claw/Kick. The topic can come up with a pretty basic Core character with no need of "blurring the lines". Saying that it wasn't the "what the intent of the rules was/should be" couldn't be further from the truth. There are several characters who are designed to use natural attacks and unarmed strikes.

I might be missing some key element of Improved Unarmed Strike. I thought IUS kept a character from suffering an Attack of Opportunity while "unarmed". Am I missing something here?
In the case I am not missing something about that feat, then the new form a character could assume is "armed" with natural weapons and does not need IUS.
The 1st level sorcerer gets two claw attacks at full BAB. It is a supernatural ability spelled out in the class. Where does the "kick" come in?
Are you saying that the Druid/monk attacks as a monk while transformed into a bear? Again I say that would be double dipping....the bear will not be attacking as a monk...it is a bear with bear attacks.


Is there a feat that grants an additional(bonus) unarmed attack that I am not aware of? Or has Improved Unarmed Strike been changed in one of the many expansion books? I keep thinking that what I am saying makes sense....maybe I am missing a key element in this discussion.....


Darkrist wrote:
Is there a feat that grants an additional(bonus) unarmed attack that I am not aware of? Or has Improved Unarmed Strike been changed in one of the many expansion books? I keep thinking that what I am saying makes sense....maybe I am missing a key element in this discussion.....

What you're missing is that ALL creatures can make weapon attacks along with their natural attack. That's right in the rule.

Unarmed strikes are weapon attacks. That's right in the rules.

Add those together and a creature can make their unarmed attacks (weapon attacks) with their natural attacks. It's simple addition/combination of rules elements.

You are missing one of the basics the game is build on. To be clear, I can build a tiefling or skinwalker monk right now that has 3 natural attacks at 1st and can make a full attack of unarmed strike, unarmed strike, natural attack, natural attack, natural attack. Perfectly 100% legal...


I agree as long as you are taking a -5 modifier on every additional attack after the "primary" attack from your character class. I still feel that you are pushing the boundary between "monster, or natural weaponry" and character level progression. My point is that these are not "free" "bonus" attacks.

I can make a 1st level Commoner with Improved Unarmed Strike who can attack with Fist,Fist, Kick,Kick and an Irish Headbutt as a finale on the round, but he won't be very successful.

I think (as always) it comes down to the individual DM and campaign (less Medieval and more Asian flair means more people kung-fu-ing about).


Minuses: You take -5 on the natural attacks unless you take the feat to drop that to -2. All are secondary when taken with weapon attacks.
Weapons take the -2 for TWF.

pushing the boundary between "monster, or natural weaponry": the basic core rules feature natural weapons and unarmed strikes. The boundaries where pushed from pathfinder's very creation and before in 3.5. Now you have several races that start out with natural weapons

That 1st level commoner is as successful as he would be with two actual weapons. That's the point.

individual DM: Brawler is a thing. Sacred fist is a thing. Improved unarmed strike is a thing. It isn't about kung-fuing or Asian unless you want it to be. Irori's favorite weapon is unarmed strikes. Does that make him an Asian kung-fu god?


No, Irori is the monastic, or "Monk" god if you will. And of course The Monk class is based on a more Asian flavor combatant. Do all Tieflings have natural weapons in the RAW? I am not familiar with them or skin-walkers. I might be a little too much in the 3.5 frame of mind. I thought Tieflings had a level adjustment for all their special abilities... Not seeing that in a quick search.

51 to 100 of 114 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / The Interaction Between Unarmed Strikes and Natural Attacks All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.