Animal companions that have only one natural attack generally get x1.5 their Strength modifier added to their damage with it. Does this remain true once they get the extra attack from Multiattack in the Animal Companion features? Or does their damage actually go down now that they have multiple attacks?
Does this also effect the damage modifiers they would receive from things like Power Attack?
If the damage does go down, is it always at the lower value (x1 Strength modifier), or only when the animal companion opts to make multiple attacks with its natural weapon?
An animal companion gains Multiattack as a bonus feat if it has three or more natural attacks and does not already have that feat. If it does not have the requisite three or more natural attacks, the animal companion instead gains a second attack with one of its natural weapons, albeit at a –5 penalty.
This ultimately depends on whether they have primary and/or secondary attacks.
At worst, if a creature has a Bite and 2 Claws, all at Primary bonuses, they have no bonuses to gain or lose, meaning it does nothing.
At best, they gain a second attack at 1.5x modifier (with a -5 penalty), or all of their secondary attacks only suffer a -2 penalty.
That being said, I don't see a penalty here, because each extra attack, if just one Primary, still functions at 1.5x modifier, and each Secondary attack applies only a -2 penalty.
Quite frankly, this becomes either the base TWF feat, a plausible ITWF feat, or the next Prone Shooter, depending on your Natural Attack array.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the rule is the 1.5x damage applies if you only have one natural attack.
you still only have one natural attack even if you gain an "iterative" with it.
if you had two natural attacks you could make both of them at full bab.
so the 1.5x applies to all attacks, no different than greatsword with iteratives, or if you added combat reflexes to same animal.
Natural Attacks
Most creatures possess one or more natural attacks (attacks made without a weapon). These attacks fall into one of two categories, primary and secondary attacks. Primary attacks are made using the creature’s full base attack bonus and add the creature’s full Strength bonus on damage rolls. Secondary attacks are made using the creature’s base attack bonus –5 and add only 1/2 the creature’s Strength bonus on damage rolls. If a creature has only one natural attack, it is always made using the creature’s full base attack bonus and adds 1-1/2 times the creature’s Strength bonus on damage rolls. This increase does not apply if the creature has multiple attacks but only takes one. If a creature has only one type of attack, but has multiple attacks per round, that attack is treated as a primary attack, regardless of its type.
Or does their damage actually go down now that they have multiple attacks?
The rule is multiple natural attacks, so no. It doesn't have anything to do with the number of attacks they have, it's the number of times they have an ability the universal monster rules refer to as "natural attacks."
I actually got curious on this one once before, and went looking at one of the best ways to look at how devs interpret their own rules- the bestiaries (and other such published stat blocks). Since if they can't do it right, how cna they expect us too?
So, I decided to go with druids (cause hey, animal companions are their thing, and they have the berth of selection that I will find something). After discovering that a lot of npc druids have domains instead, I finally found an example. Here is an uskwood druid with a dire bat.
As the stat block indicates, the bat is getting 1.5x str damage (+5 str mod, but +7 damage on the bite), despite having the fake iterative.
So while I can't say my search was exhaustive, and its authority only goes so far... well, it is a clear example that at least one dev seems to think it works this way.
I actually got curious on this one once before, and went looking at one of the best ways to look at how devs interpret their own rules- the bestiaries (and other such published stat blocks). Since if they can't do it right, how cna they expect us too?
So, I decided to go with druids (cause hey, animal companions are their thing, and they have the berth of selection that I will find something). After discovering that a lot of npc druids have domains instead, I finally found an example. Here is an uskwood druid with a dire bat.
As the stat block indicates, the bat is getting 1.5x str damage (+5 str mod, but +7 damage on the bite), despite having the fake iterative.
So while I can't say my search was exhaustive, and its authority only goes so far... well, it is a clear example that at least one dev seems to think it works this way.
Statblock diving is a perfectly valid way to answer rules questions.
Statblock diving is a perfectly valid way to answer rules questions.
Oh, sure, but I am not sure if this is consistant (again, very small sample, since most NPCs have domains/that ranger thing/etc.).
And I can't be sure there isn't some FAQ or end of a long rules thread tht says otherwise (still unsure if you can gore and bite at the same time)
But given what we have right now, keeping x1.5 str seems to be the way it is run for now.
EDIT- so yeah, one big hit builds with a bunch of hits seem viable, since it has the better part of a full attack. Put on some haste, maybe something like hurtful/cornugon smash for another... yeah, you can get some good hits in. It works for eidlons as well, since they also get multiattack. A bit sad that it doesn't work for phantoms (their extra attack actively makes them weaker; not a problem for most phantoms, since they are more condition dealers... but I weep for anger...)
To be fair, Paizo's FAQs often clash with certain published statblocks. I am pretty sure there are more than a few Undead Antipaladins with double CHA to their Fort saves. Also pretty sure there's a vicious weapon user who supposedly takes no self damage due to his DR. So really, even statblocks leave you at the whims of the design team.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
if the majority of statblocks agree with one of the most straightforward readings of the rule in question, I would assume I should go with that until a FAQ says otherwise.
if the majority of statblocks agree with one of the most straightforward readings of the rule in question, I would assume I should go with that until a FAQ says otherwise.
And the 'majority' part is the buggy one for me here. That was the only NPC with the appropriately level animal companion I could find, since most npc druids have domains, rangers often take the 'give some favored enemy to allies', and the rest of the usual suspects didn't have +level 9.
It also troublesome that this require rather specific animal companions.
There is also a problem with the 'leadership for NPCS' problem- enemies don't need class features like that to have animals fight with them, since the animals are GM controlled (and thus they can do exactly what the owner needs without using handle animal, which would need a boosted mechanic for that skill to make it free action). They can also have appropriately scaled pets without using a mechanics as well, since the GM throws it in. I suppose that is why the animal companion classes always take the other option as NPCs, since it would just be a waste of a mechanic otherwise.
Have you checked the adventure paths/modules as well? You might find an appropriate stat block in those somewhere.
if the majority of statblocks agree with one of the most straightforward readings of the rule in question, I would assume I should go with that until a FAQ says otherwise.And the 'majority' part is the buggy one for me here. That was the only NPC with the appropriately level animal companion I could find, since most npc druids have domains, rangers often take the 'give some favored enemy to allies', and the rest of the usual suspects didn't have +level 9.
If the one published example agrees with the most literal reading of the rules, that's good enough for me.
Of course- it is more than enough to work under. That is why I brought it up.
Most of what I've been going on about is that I didn't know if there was anything else floating about, and if so... this would be flimsy compared to that.
A single published stat block, while a valid statement of the rules, is on the low end of weight compared to other info from the devs. I view it on the level of a city ordinance, and a FAQ or errata on the level of a supreme court case. Both are valid rules that we need to follow (outside of homeruling)... but one has a lot more weight than the other.