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.
Irori is one of the basic gods so if you use pathfinder that's baked in.
Tieflings: They have an option for natural weapons (ARG) as do 1/2 orcs and several other races. Tieflings have NO level adjustment.
skin-walkers had their own companion book. They can change shape and one of the things they can gain from it is a natural attack (or several).
tieflings, skinwalkers, kitsune, catfolk, changeling, Aasimar(with feat), Dhampir(with feat), Kuru, orc (trait/feat), goblin, tenku, kobold(feat) and Wyvarans can all have natural attacks.
Most of these can be found in the PRD.
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.Are you saying that because people do those builds that they make sense or are balanced, or what? Of course people do them, but the issue at hand is whether or not they are balanced.
The songbird of doom for instance, does not make any sense nor is it balanced. One of it's major sources of it's power comes from gaining extra natural/unarmed attacks.
No, what makes it work so well is the feat line(s) intended to be situationally useful (small characters) and a relatively cheap magic item that makes the feats useful all the time basically. More attacks just makes it "better" but that is no different than any build that relies on multiple attacks. Not to mention as it stands, the original build wasn't actually remotely "legal" as it was based on some assumptions and broke some rules.
Joesi: Did you think that the builds that I actually mentioned were "obscure"? They are all from the Core rule book. I'm not sure what your definition of "obscure" is.
As far as whether it is balanced or not... well, I think that was all considered during the advent of Pathfinder. If the Devs didn't think it was balanced then they wouldn't have wrote it into the rules the way that they did. If it isn't obvious I fall into the group of people that believe it is just as balanced to allow Unarmed Strikers to use Natural Attacks in combination as it is for Manufactured Weapon users. Luckily, the rules agree with me.
By the way, "the issue at hand" is not whether they are balanced or not. That is not the topic of the thread. The OP is asking if it is legal. And the answer to that is an unequivocal and resounding "yes".
Are you saying that because people do those builds that they make sense or are balanced, or what? Of course people do them, but the issue at hand is whether or not they are balanced.
It's SO unbalanced and illogical that Pathfinder CONTINUES to add those kind of features. APG, bestiaries, companions, ect. We've got maybe a dozen books that add more of these kinds of options into the game for PC's. Just because your group doesn't use them doesn't mean they don't or shouldn't exist.
|
In addition many creatures don't have the anatomy to perform strikes the way that humanoids do, the only people who are presumed to be able to perform unarmed strikes, since natural attacks are assumed for most non-humanoid shape creatures.
The Core Rulebook disagrees with this. Unarmed Strikes don't care about fists, or even kicks. Unarmed strikes can be made with any part of the body. Even a snake can make a headbutt if it chose to do so.
From the Combat Chapter on Pg. 182
Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:
How are you interpreting what I said to be what you said? please be rational and productive instead of making a straw man argument. As Lune stated, the examples they gave are core and have nothing to do with new features and content. New features and content is great, but with it comes more ability for illogical or abusive combinations.
MY point was that those features where available at start AND they continue to add to them. It seems fairly clear that the people that make the rules don't see them as unbalanced because of the continued addition of such features. "illogical or abusive combinations" are in the eye of the beholder and I think we'd disagree on what the criteria are for them.
There's a difference between saying that unarmed strikes don't need to be punches and kicks and saying that tigers can use their tail to perform an unarmed strike, or a beholder to use one of their protruding eyes.
A big cube of jello can slam you. (gelatinous cube) If you can accept that, a tiger doing a tail slap seems easy to accept.
No I don't consider it to be obscure. I never brought up the word obscure, so I don't know why you're bringing that up.
Because you had said, "Are you saying that because people do those builds that they make sense or are balanced, or what?" Perhaps I assumed incorrectly that the problem you had with these builds is that they were niche corner cases and were obscure. But to answer your question, yes. I do think that they make sense and are balanced (to the same degree as many things in Pathfinder). But then, perhaps I have a more creative and open mind than some others may to such things.
The monk-druid I'd take issue with balance wise, since it would use monk's fist damage modified by monk's size when in my opinion it's assumed the monk is in their natural form when performing such attacks. In addition many creatures don't have the anatomy to perform strikes the way that humanoids do, the only people who are presumed to be able to perform unarmed strikes, since natural attacks are assumed for most non-humanoid shape creatures.
Have you taken a look at prototype00's guide for Bear Fisted fighting? I think you may have underestimated the potential of such a build. I know that your retort will be that you don't think it is balanced but I will remind you that this thread was a rules question. The original poster was asking about the legality of his question. Your opinion on whether it is balanced is not required for it to be legal. ...of course you are still welcome to share it.
And, as has already been pointed out by the others, your opinion is an incorrect reflection of what the rules state.
As far as whether it is balanced or not... well, I think that was all considered during the advent of Pathfinder. If the Devs didn't think it was balanced then they wouldn't have wrote it into the rules the way that they did.No, that is an assumption, and a poor one since they oftentimes write all sorts of things that they change or clarify later on.
In addition, for this game not changing something would just means that it's not imbalanced enough to be an issue, not that something isn't imbalanced at all.
Wait... so you are saying that the reason they put those rules in the book after considering this during the development of Pathfinder is because they thought that it was unbalanced when they made the system? Or just that because they have failed to make any change or update disallowing it since the release of the system that this would be because it is unbalanced?
I'm sorry, that doesn't make any sense at all. And if the Devs thought that it was unbalanced or misinterpreted they could have done an errata or FAQ. The fact that they haven't makes it a safe assumption that they believe that it is balanced and does not need a FAQ or errata. I would point out that you, yourself are making an assumption thinking that the Devs do believe that it is unbalanced or misinterpreted but I am not even clear if that is what you are saying as there seems to be no basis for this assumption outside of your personal opinion on game balance.
If it isn't obvious I fall into the group of people that believe it is just as balanced to allow Unarmed Strikers to use Natural Attacks in combination as it is for Manufactured Weapon users.That's a poor way of wording your view in my opinion, because it's exactly what I'm advocating as well. The issue I have is in certain scenarios where it's unrealistic that a creature could attack with certain limbs/organs with unarmed strike (for example, how is a tiger supposed to claw, claw, bite, unarmed? kick with its tiger leg?). In addition, polymorphed creatures aren't balanced around being able to perform unarmed strikes.
I'm sorry that you dislike my wording. Once again, I believe this is balanced. Apparently we disagree? Maybe we don't because you say that is exactly what you are advocating? Honestly, I am confused at this point if we have a disagreement.
Nonetheless, I believe it is irrelevant to this thread as the OP is not asking if it is balanced or not. He is asking whether it is legal within the rules.
Doesn't mean I can't contribute my logical opinion. There's all sorts of things that can be broken by simply following strictly what the rules state and ignoring everything else. Reasonable groups or GMs don't allow certain blind "as written" following of rules.
And likewise, I never said you cannot share your opinion. Feel free. I simply stated that it is not relevant to the topic of this thread. People come to a rules thread to find out if something is rules legal or not. Discussing whether or not something is balanced or not isn't typically very helpful to the individual and typically belongs in a different forum. I have a feeling this will not deter you, though... so feel free to keep sharing, I guess.
The rules question has been answered.