Hi, everyone.
Say I have a tiefling investigator with a 1 level dip in brawler which gets him Improved Unarmed Strike.
1. Can I take the feat two weapon fighting and use an extra attack with my unarmed strikes?
Brawler description specifies “A brawler may attack with fists, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a brawler may make unarmed strikes with her hands full. A brawler applies her full Strength modifier (not half) on damage rolls for all her unarmed strikes.” Considering this:
2. Can I use all TWF attacks without using my hands?
3. What’s the STR modifier that I should apply in the “off-hand” TWF attack?
The build already has three natural attacks (2 claws from Tiefling and one bite from ring of rat fangs). Brawler’s flurry, a brawler class feature gained at second level, states that “a brawler has the Two-Weapon Fighting feat when attacking with any combination of unarmed strikes (…). A brawler with natural weapons can't use such weapons as part of brawler's flurry, nor can she make natural weapon attacks in addition to her brawler's flurry attacks”, but that’s a level 2 feature and I would be dipping only one level. That means I plan to use the bonus Improved Unarmed Strike obtained at level 1 plus a regular two weapon fighting feat. Considering this:
4. Can I combine TWF unarmed attacks with natural attacks? (I know that it implies that all natural attacks would be made as secondary attacks at BAB-5).
The idea is to combine the three natural attacks with unarmed iteratives PLUS the extra attacks obtained from TWF, ITWF and GTWF. At level 15, with a BAB of +11/+6/+1 (and with the multiattack feat), this character would get: right foot +9/left foot +9/right claw +9/left claw +9/bite +9/right foot +4/left foot +4/ right foot -1/left foot -1. Nine attacks, with an agile amulet of mighty fists (it’s a DEX-based build) applying to all of them, and with full DEX bonus to damage with all nine thanks to brawler and the double slice feat. I haven’t made any calculations yet, but considering the bonuses from mutagen, studied combat, buffs, etc., I think it would be able to obliterate almost anyone with a single full attack.
Too good to be true? Which are the things that I’m doing wrong?
1) Absolutely. Unarmed strikes count as light weapons for the purposes of two weapon fighting.
2) Yes, you never need to use your hands. I once had an armless monk who took weapon focus (forehead).
3) You would be adding full Str bonus on all unarmed strikes.
4) No. The part of the brawler class at level two doesn't restrict you from combining a full unarmed two weapon fighting attack with unarmed strike, it's just reminding you that you can't. As a general rule, don't ever, ever, ever try to combine natural attacks with unarmed strikes. Not only does it hardly ever work without taking feral combat training and completely focusing on it, everybody at the table will hate you because you'll have to explain the rules of it every single fight.
So things to keep in mind are that all natural attacks are downgraded to secondary natural attacks. Meaning they all have a -5 to hit and all do half strength (or half dex if your using agile) damage.
Yes, you can pick up regular TWF feats and TWF with your unarmed strikes. They will do full strength damage always because the brawler class feature says so. Keep in mind that you cannot use unarmed strikes on the same limbs that your natural attacks are on. Fortunately, unarmed strikes can be any part of your body so usually it's not a problem. At the very least you can just kick a whole bunch because to my knowledge there isn't a way to get any talon natural attacks (claws don't go on feet talons do).
Also, you don't strictly qualify for multiattack feat, as it is a monster feat. Though your GM can certainly allow it.
4) No. The part of the brawler class at level two doesn't restrict you from combining a full unarmed two weapon fighting attack with unarmed strike, it's just reminding you that you can't. As a general rule, don't ever, ever, ever try to combine natural attacks with unarmed strikes. Not only does it hardly ever work without taking feral combat training and completely focusing on it, everybody at the table will hate you because you'll have to explain the rules of it every single fight.This is simply not accurate, there are many bestiary entries built with combining manufactured weapons with natural weapon, seeing as IUS is explicitly called out as functioning as a manufactured weapon.
As an example, you can look at the Tataka Rakshasa (last entry on the page).
Not sure what the last entry has to do with this, as it has only natural attacks.
But I need to rephrase what I said. What I meant is that you can't use your natural attacks as part of your full attack. For instance, you can't use a claw instead of an unarmed strike. You can absolutely still use them as secondary weapons, just with the additional penalties.
It seems the fourth question is the one without consensum. Any official source I can check?
The part of the brawler class at level two doesn't restrict you from combining a full unarmed two weapon fighting attack with unarmed strike, it's just reminding you that you can't.
According to this interpretation, an unarmed half-orc with a bite attack can't bite if he uses his fists. Is that so? Or he can UNLESS he also applies TWF? Can I combine unarmed with natural attacks if i DON'T use TWF to get extra attacks?
You won't need Double Slice since, if you're using unarmed strike for your off-hand attacks, they get full Str anyway.
That's correct, thank you. I was thinking about getting full STR to the secondary natural attacks, but Double Slice can't get me that either, so I would only apply 1/2 STR to damage with all natural attacks (unless they are the only attacks I make, of course).
But I need to rephrase what I said. What I meant is that you can't use your natural attacks as part of your full attack. For instance, you can't use a claw instead of an unarmed strike. You can absolutely still use them as secondary weapons, just with the additional penalties.
Oh, I see now. Thanks for the clarification.
One more question. I was under the impression that when combining natural attacks with manufactured/unarmed attacks, all natural attacks were considered secondary attacks at BAB -5. I thought that TWF didn't affect the attack bonus of the secundary natural attacks, and that they were still done at BAB-5 (instead of BAB-7 because of the extra -2 from TWF). Am I wrong?
Yes, sorry for the confusion. In hindsight my wording was poor.
I am tentatively inclined to say you only take a -5, not a -7 since they are not part of TWF, but I'm not entirely sure on that one.
You only take the two weapon fighting penalties with the attacks that are being used with the two weapon fighting feat
Yes, that's what I thought. Every bit of help counts!
Also, you don't strictly qualify for multiattack feat, as it is a monster feat. Though your GM can certainly allow it.
About monster feats, rules say that "most of the following feats apply specifically to monsters, although some player characters might qualify for them"
If I comply with the prerequisites (in this case, having three or more natural attacks) I would assume the feat would be legal by RAW. It can also be granted to rangers as one of their bonus feats, which kind of supports this interpretation. I will definitely consult with my GM first, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They're called monster feats because they're introduced in the Bestiary and the requirements are fulfilled by monsters more often than not, but if a PC can qualify it's fair game.
Only PFS bans them altogether, but it's a specific houserule of the Society rather than raw.
|
They're called monster feats because they're introduced in the Bestiary and the requirements are fulfilled by monsters more often than not, but if a PC can qualify it's fair game.
Only PFS bans them altogether, but it's a specific houserule of the Society rather than raw.
A lot of non-society GMs I have played with have banned them too. They do not appear in any player resource, so they are banned by rule 0 as often as any other non-CRB source.
I wouldn't assume they are available when creating a character, and I would run anything by your GM before putting it on your sheet.
|
|
I am not saying that RAW, a player cannot take monster feats, they can. Just as RAW, a player may play a synthesist summoner, or a bloodrager, or a gunslinger, or a kineticist. However, many GMs may ban the synthesist, gunslingers, the ACG, or Occult Adventures. Likewise, many GMs may ban players from taking monster feats.
It is a house rule, but it is a common houserule, and anyone designing a character around using those feats should be aware of that and verify that the GM is allowing them to be taken.
Leadership.
...*leaves laughing*
I must say, it has not been common in the games I play outside PFS.
I don't know if I would say it is common among all home games.
Sure, it's possible, but point to the Ranger, and I don't think a DM will give one much of a hassle.
It's common enough that PFSRD felt the need to call attention to it:
...If characters can somehow gain these subtypes or otherwise do meet all of the prerequisites please consult with your GM to see if such feats are allowed for PCs in his or her campaign.
Show me the link.
No such line exist in the Bestiary.
What is that specifically referencing?
I meant D20PFSRD not the official PRD: Link
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay. Not really relevant rules-wise. Also, out of context.
So, quote the whole thing for context, at least.
Most of the following feats apply specifically to monsters, although some player characters might qualify for them (particularly Craft Construct).
Note that for the purposes of this site it was decided that a feat that wasn't explicitly notated as a "monster feat" in the original source materials but which, by it's prerequisites or other requirements, is exceptionally unlikely to be a viable choice for a player character was listed here. Such feats include those with a prerequisite of a type or subtype that are not normally player character options, such as the giant or fire subtypes. If characters can somehow gain these subtypes or otherwise do meet all of the prerequisites please consult with your GM to see if such feats are allowed for PCs in his or her campaign.
It speaks specifically about feats with type and subtype prerequisites, notes it's opinion, and gives them a classification that does not exist.
You took one line, out of context, and made a false baseline.
It's misleading, even if that was not your intent.
Okay. Not really relevant rules-wise. Also, out of context.
Completely relevant and completely in context. If you qualify, ask your GM. Can't get much simpler than that.
EDIT: We're not talking "rules wise" we're talking about the commonality of the situation.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, if you go that route, you have to ask for anything to be allowed, from any source.
You are basically saying "DMs sometime disallow stuff."
There is no need to call the Bestiary as some sort of needed special mentioning, or special case.
Some DMs don't allow Wizards, or Traits.
This doesn't mean you should automatically assume they don't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And by consequence, slayers + druid and inquisitor archetypes
Mmh. In the brawler's flurry description, rules say "A brawler with natural weapons can't use such weapons as part of brawler's flurry, nor can she make natural weapon attacks in addition to her brawler's flurry attacks."
Does that mean that brawler's flurry forbids making natural weapon attacks, even as secondary attacks with the -5 penalty? If this is the case, is there a difference if I use the normal TWF feat (instead of the blawler's flurry class feature)?
Mmh. In the brawler's flurry description, rules say "A brawler with natural weapons can't use such weapons as part of brawler's flurry, nor can she make natural weapon attacks in addition to her brawler's flurry attacks."
Does that mean that brawler's flurry forbids making natural weapon attacks, even as secondary attacks with the -5 penalty? If this is the case, is there a difference if I use the normal TWF feat (instead of the blawler's flurry class feature)?
Yes and yes. Brawlers flurry can't use natural attacks at all. Normal TWF can add natural attacks.
Well, if you go that route, you have to ask for anything to be allowed, from any source.
You are basically saying "DMs sometime disallow stuff."
There is no need to call the Bestiary as some sort of needed special mentioning, or special case.
Some DMs don't allow Wizards, or Traits.
This doesn't mean you should automatically assume they don't.
Except you have one person stating that it is banned common enough to ask, which is backed by a website saying that you should ask, which is counter to you saying it isn't common, which is really the point.
Except you have one person stating that it is banned common enough to ask, which is backed by a website saying that you should ask, which is counter to you saying it isn't common, which is really the point.Well, if you go that route, you have to ask for anything to be allowed, from any source.
You are basically saying "DMs sometime disallow stuff."
There is no need to call the Bestiary as some sort of needed special mentioning, or special case.
Some DMs don't allow Wizards, or Traits.
This doesn't mean you should automatically assume they don't.
It's a house-rule of PSF so of course it's common. That doesn't make it a rule. It's literally restating rule 0 that the DM can change the rules. And it's uncommon enough that the PRD never makes the statement and it's only seen in a 3rd party website. So it's uncommonly common?
I have to say I find the whole thing odd. Why is this the place people want to point out 'your DM may have house-rules'? If I ask a question about tieflings I don't get a bunch of people chiming in with 'you'd better ask your DM because they might not allow that race...'
|
|
I have to say I find the whole thing odd. Why is this the place people want to point out 'your DM may have house-rules'? If I ask a question about tieflings I don't get a bunch of people chiming in with 'you'd better ask your DM because they might not allow that race...'
No, but you might if you were going to play a Strix, Trox, or Lizardfolk.
No, but you might if you were going to play a Strix, Trox, or Lizardfolk.
I have to say I find the whole thing odd. Why is this the place people want to point out 'your DM may have house-rules'? If I ask a question about tieflings I don't get a bunch of people chiming in with 'you'd better ask your DM because they might not allow that race...'
I don't see how those are similar things though. When the monster feats where printed, there wasn't much use for them on PC's. That is no longer the case. Using only core classes and races you can qualify for most of them without a problem.
Ability Focus: several abilities fall under this. The nebulous nature of "Special attack" is the only thing throwing a wrench into things.
Awesome Blow/Snatch: Easy enough on a druid.
Craft Construct: any caster 5+
Empower Spell-Like Ability/Quicken Spell-Like Ability: Every core race
Flyby Attack/hover/Wingover: druid again does this easily.
Improved Natural Armor: dwarf/half orc
Improved Natural Attack/Multiattack (Combat): 1/2 orc ranger
Only Multiweapon Fighting requires you to look outside of core.
SO if my assimar can grow wings and fly, why is monster feats for flying thought of as 'ask your gm' and not the race or feats that allowed me to qualify for the feats? Or the 1/2 orc with a bite taking Improved Natural Attack or Improved Natural Armor? Or my gnome with pyromaniac taking Empower/Quicken Spell-Like Ability on produce flame. "player characters might qualify" in MUCH more likely now, so much so that I don't see the need for those to be 'monster' feats other than tradition.
Well, for my particular build I don't have any feats to spare on multiattack or two weapon fighting until level 11. At that point, considering the high attack bonus I'll get from Studied Combat, mutagen, equipment, and buffs, TWF is better than MA. Later on, and according to my calculations, ITWF will be better than TWF+MA, and GTWF will be similar to ITWF+MA.
By the time MA is a clear priority, the campaign might be over.