| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm looking for a solid answer as to how claws gained from rage powers or Bloodlines interact with a race that naturally already has a pair of claws. For example, a Tengu with claws who is a Barbarian with the Lesser Beast Totem. Is it a straight gain of an extra set of claw attacks(4 claws total) or are the gained claws redundant. The language clearly says gains, but I'm looking for a solid RAW answer to make sure I'm not giving a character more attacks than they are supposed to have.
Lesser Beast Totem: "While raging, the barbarian gains two claw attacks. These attacks are considered primary attacks and are made at the barbarian's full base attack bonus. The claws deal 1d6 points of slashing damage (1d4 if Small) plus the barbarian's Strength modifier."
except the vestigial arms don't grant you more attacks then if you didn't have them, so that doesn't work.
This is something that should probably finally get FAQ'd once and for all, if only to stop it being asked. One ever-rarer examples of a true Frequently Asked Question.
This is something that should probably finally get FAQ'd once and for all, if only to stop it being asked. One ever-rarer examples of a true Frequently Asked Question.
This has been FAQ'd. Or the elements of it at least.
First, the basic idea of natural attacks is that you can only use them once per limb. That is a hardline rule. As written here:
You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack. For example, you cannot make a claw attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a longsword. When you make additional attacks in this way, all of your natural attacks are treated as secondary natural attacks, using your base attack bonus minus 5 and adding only 1/2 of your Strength modifier on damage rolls. Feats such as Two-Weapon Fighting and Multiattack can reduce these penalties.
Now, next element- claws go on hands. As stated here.
And HERE is the FAQ on vestigial arms. No, they don't let you get more attacks.
I am not seeing much ambiguity in any of this. I am sure there will be some aiming for arguments on vestigial arms, but besides some arguments on unarmed shennanigans (which I doubt many would let fly anyway), this all seems fairly settled.
The most we will gain is another link to cite during these arguments. It won't stop this from coming back and back again.
Sorcerer and Bloodrager abilities DON'T give you extra claw attacks. They let you gain claws. Vestigial arms don't give you extra attacks like you stated, thus they can't use the claws unless you didn't use your other hands, cause otherwise you'd be gaining extra attacks.
This is something that should probably finally get FAQ'd once and for all, if only to stop it being asked. One ever-rarer examples of a true Frequently Asked Question.This has been FAQ'd. Or the elements of it at least.
First, the basic idea of natural attacks is that you can only use them once per limb. That is a hardline rule. As written here:
You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack. For example, you cannot make a claw attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a longsword. When you make additional attacks in this way, all of your natural attacks are treated as secondary natural attacks, using your base attack bonus minus 5 and adding only 1/2 of your Strength modifier on damage rolls. Feats such as Two-Weapon Fighting and Multiattack can reduce these penalties.Now, next element- claws go on hands. As stated here.
And HERE is the FAQ on vestigial arms. No, they don't let you get more attacks.
I am not seeing much ambiguity in any of this. I am sure there will be some aiming for arguments on vestigial arms, but besides some arguments on unarmed shennanigans (which I doubt many would let fly anyway), this all seems fairly settled.
The most we will gain is another link to cite during these arguments. It won't stop this from coming back and back again.
That leaves a corner case unanswered however, which is naturally four-armed races and multiple natural attack granting abilities. Feral Mutagen plus Beast Totem, frex.
It seems settled to me, too.
Sorcerer and Bloodrager abilities give you extra claw attacks.
As you said, you can't have more claw attacks than you have arms to put them on.
Vestigial Arm gives you extra arms, but it doesn't give you extra attacks.
But Sorcerer and Bloodrager abilities, and the Feral Mutagen Discovery do.
I don't see much ambiguity, either.
Yes, but you can't use those arms to make more attacks than if you have just the regular number of arms, even if you have abilities that add more claw attacks.
As the vestigial arm FAQ said:
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.
The faq is fairly explicit. It explains both RAW and RAI- no extra attacks means no extra attacks. The discovery is not meant to upgrade your attacks, it is meant to give some niche advantage, such as allowing you to have a free hand for things (spells, reloading, etc.) or perhaps something like sticking a dagger in the hand so you still threaten up close while using a reach weapon.
Summoner's aspect ability can add two additional arms. It comes late (level 10) and there is some minor risk your GM opposes putting rage claws on limbs provided by your connection to the eidolon, but it's more solid than vestigial arms where you would need a quite tolerant GM who ignores devs' intention in your favor.
I hope they will introduce some higher level upgrade for vestigial arm / tentacle, allowing additional natural attacks. Or, more general, I hope for other ways to add limbs, at reasonable balance.
If you want to put claws on your vestigial arms, the only way you can use them is if you swap out other attacks in exchange, as described in the FAQ. You cannot get a greater total number of attacks than you would otherwise have. However, it's not tracking natural attacks vs. manufactured weapon attacks, so you can exchange your iterative (and off-hand) unarmed strike attacks for claw attacks, as long as you don't exceed the total number of attacks you could make without the vestigial arms.
Thats more than a little iffy. You can't claim that you get 5 attacks when two weapon fighting and then take 5 natural attacks without doing any two weapon fighting.
Can you show me a compelling rules-based reason why not?
The rules interaction you propose is explicitly prohibited. From the FAQ:
"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."
@ lemeres: Even the reach weapon example won't work. The FAQ says for the purposes of attacks, you are treated as if you didn't have those extra limbs. This means that even with a reach weapon and a dagger, you don't threaten adjacent with that dagger, because it is giving you an extra attack that, without said arms, you wouldn't normally be able to take.
An Attack of Opportunity is an attack, and through that corollary, you would not be applicable to make Attacks of Opportunity with that dagger, because it is exceeding what you could otherwise normally do with your normal hands.
@ BigNorseWolf: High-end Dragons have a Bite, two Wings, two Claws, and a Tail swipe. That's 6 Attacks via 6 Natural weapons. Are you going to rule that a Dragon has to TWF in order to make all of those attacks? I mean sure, he'd have to spend a Full Attack in order to do them, but TWF? No.
If you want to put claws on your vestigial arms, the only way you can use them is if you swap out other attacks in exchange, as described in the FAQ. You cannot get a greater total number of attacks than you would otherwise have. However, it's not tracking natural attacks vs. manufactured weapon attacks, so you can exchange your iterative (and off-hand) unarmed strike attacks for claw attacks, as long as you don't exceed the total number of attacks you could make without the vestigial arms.Thats more than a little iffy. You can't claim that you get 5 attacks when two weapon fighting and then take 5 natural attacks without doing any two weapon fighting.
And thus why I mentioned unarmed shenanigans early on. Because you are taking 3 attacks that should be at -5 with 1/2 str/power attack, one set of iterative attacks at -2 with 1/2 damage, and one set of iterative attacks at -2 with full damage... and you are turning them all into all full BAB and full damage.
And heck, if you are REALLY brazen, you wouldn't take TWf feats eitehr, so those would actually be -4 (not like you need to worry about improved TWF, since you aren't using iteratives, and you aren't ever dealing with those penalties, so no TWF or multiattack). And since you always have unarmed attacks (the main problem with not having IUS is drawing AoOs), you don't even need that. You would be able to do it while spending 0 feats.
With no investment, that means there would be nothing stopping you from saying "I attack with my legs, but don't and send it to my withered little arms" at any point. Which would basically make the FAQ about vestigial arms and tentacles completely and utterly defunct.
So anyone paying attention would say 'no'.
I am simply saying... while it allows you to switch out attacks like that, there is a question of whether it lets you avoid the TON of penalties since you removed the attack that caused the penalties to use it as fuel for other attacks.
So while it is possible to switch out...any GM seeing where all the numbers go should be apprehensive, to say the least.
I do not that the general natural of claw attacks has been settled (just because you have two abilities that grant claws doesn't let you get more claws when you have two arms), and now this is just devolving into another vestigial arms debate. Lovely.
It might not match up with what you think it ought to be, but it's what Sean K. Reynolds said to explain how the FAQ works. I guess its up to you to decide whether you think that's a valid source of clarification.
Everyone reading the clarification came back with a different answer on what you could do. So thats a bit of table variation i wouldn't hit with a 10 foot pole
It might not match up with what you think it ought to be, but it's what Sean K. Reynolds said to explain how the FAQ works. I guess its up to you to decide whether you think that's a valid source of clarification.Everyone reading the clarification came back with a different answer on what you could do. So thats a bit of table variation i wouldn't hit with a 10 foot pole
[snark]I think that means he didn't do a very good job[/snark]
And the main problem with all this is how it interacts with natural weapons.
If you had daggers in each hand, you would still be restricted to just two attacks (since you couldn't mix two sets of dagger iteratives with 2 sets of kick iteratives- TWF only allows the use of one extra limb).
So when you look at that fact, it make the '4 claw' thing even wonkier.
A more likely scenario for allowing kicks to go to vestigial arms would be this:
Someone with
-a crossbow in their real hands (ie- somehting occupying the hands that would prevent them from being used in melee)
-feral mutagen putting claws on vestigial hands
-kicks
With the basic idea that the kicks go to the feral mutagen arms to preserve 2 arms worth of effort, rather than allowing 4 arms of effort. That seems like a more likely interpretation. It allows sean reynold's comment to stand, but keeps the stated intentions of the vestigial arm faq.
@ lemeres: Even the reach weapon example won't work. The FAQ says for the purposes of attacks, you are treated as if you didn't have those extra limbs. This means that even with a reach weapon and a dagger, you don't threaten adjacent with that dagger, because it is giving you an extra attack that, without said arms, you wouldn't normally be able to take.
This is incorrect. Making an AoO with a weapon you threaten with isn't breaking the limit. You could do it easier with armor spikes or unamred attacks, so a dagger wielded by a third hand is completely okay.
@ lemeres: Even the reach weapon example won't work. The FAQ says for the purposes of attacks, you are treated as if you didn't have those extra limbs. This means that even with a reach weapon and a dagger, you don't threaten adjacent with that dagger, because it is giving you an extra attack that, without said arms, you wouldn't normally be able to take.This is incorrect. Making an AoO with a weapon you threaten with isn't breaking the limit. You could do it easier with armor spikes or unamred attacks, so a dagger wielded by a third hand is completely okay.
No, you can't. If you need that arm to wield the dagger and threaten with (because your 2 normal hands are occupied), then you can't make AoOs with that dagger, per the FAQ.
yes you can, as when you're making the AoO you're only caring about the hand with the Dagger. An AoO isn't an extra attack gained from extra hands. Like I said, you're completely able to wield a longspear in two hands and still threaten with your armor spikes or Improved Unarmed Strikes, thus threatening 10ft and 5ft. Extra attacks are only of concern for a full attack.
Your view almost seems like you're saying you can't get a shield's bonus to AC if you wielded a weapon with both hands as your two hands would be used up and the shield would be left out. Yet gaining the benefit of a shield while using a two handed weapon is something that was intended to be done with this discovery.
EDIT: The FAQ doesn't care about you wielding more weapons than normal, only that you can't gain extra attacks in a full attack.
yes you can, as when you're making the AoO you're only caring about the hand with the Dagger. An AoO isn't an extra attack gained from extra hands. Like I said, you're completely able to wield a longspear in two hands and still threaten with your armor spikes or Improved Unarmed Strikes, thus threatening 10ft and 5ft. Extra attacks are only of concern for a full attack.
Your view almost seems like you're saying you can't get a shield's bonus to AC if you wielded a weapon with both hands as your two hands would be used up and the shield would be left out. Yet gaining the benefit of a shield while using a two handed weapon is something that was intended to be done with this discovery.EDIT: The FAQ doesn't care about you wielding more weapons than normal, only that you can't gain extra attacks in a full attack.
The definition of extra may involve some jedi truth
yes you can, as when you're making the AoO you're only caring about the hand with the Dagger. An AoO isn't an extra attack gained from extra hands. Like I said, you're completely able to wield a longspear in two hands and still threaten with your armor spikes or Improved Unarmed Strikes, thus threatening 10ft and 5ft. Extra attacks are only of concern for a full attack.
Your view almost seems like you're saying you can't get a shield's bonus to AC if you wielded a weapon with both hands as your two hands would be used up and the shield would be left out. Yet gaining the benefit of a shield while using a two handed weapon is something that was intended to be done with this discovery.EDIT: The FAQ doesn't care about you wielding more weapons than normal, only that you can't gain extra attacks in a full attack.
You're not attacking with the shield, meaning no extra attacks are being taken, meaning it's legal to carry it. You can use the shield, but you can't attack with it. In other words, you can have its passive AC bonus, but you can't use Defending with it while using a Two-Handed Weapon to attack as well. Sure, you can threaten with Unarmed Strikes or Armor Spikes, but that doesn't mean you can take an AoO with a weapon that requires a hand when you're using two of those 3+ hands to threaten with that Two-Handed Weapon.
I don't see anything in the FAQ to suggest that it applies only to attacks made on your turn, as you're claiming. In fact, it actually says any extra attacks in the round. This would include attacks not on your turn as well, i.e. Attacks of Opportunity. So this means that not only can you attack as if you didn't have the hands, it means you can't threaten (and thereby make attacks of opportunity) with the hands either.
It might not match up with what you think it ought to be, but it's what Sean K. Reynolds said to explain how the FAQ works. I guess its up to you to decide whether you think that's a valid source of clarification.Everyone reading the clarification came back with a different answer on what you could do. So thats a bit of table variation i wouldn't hit with a 10 foot pole
Yeah, that thread and clarification was kind of a mess. On first blush, everything seemed pretty clear: no extra attacks, no 4xclaw, everything as expected. Then in some clarifying statements (e.g., we're not tracking attacks), it certainly seemed like 4xclaws was acceptable because it is the number, not type, of attacks that matters.
But then my (as of yet still unanswered) question was, why then can't you make 4xdagger attacks with vestigial arms? If what matters is the number, not the type, of attacks, the argument for 4xclaws and 4xdaggers is the exact same. There's no reason you should be allowed to do one, but can't do the other (because again, the clarification turned on the total number of attacks, not type - so the "you can always make all your natural attacks" argument is irrelevant).
It went from a huge mess to decent clarity to a different but equally huge mess. So for my money, it's no 4xclaws shenanigans as per the apparent initial intended meaning of the FAQ. But yes, very much expect table variation.
yes you can, as when you're making the AoO you're only caring about the hand with the Dagger. An AoO isn't an extra attack gained from extra hands. Like I said, you're completely able to wield a longspear in two hands and still threaten with your armor spikes or Improved Unarmed Strikes, thus threatening 10ft and 5ft. Extra attacks are only of concern for a full attack.
Your view almost seems like you're saying you can't get a shield's bonus to AC if you wielded a weapon with both hands as your two hands would be used up and the shield would be left out. Yet gaining the benefit of a shield while using a two handed weapon is something that was intended to be done with this discovery.EDIT: The FAQ doesn't care about you wielding more weapons than normal, only that you can't gain extra attacks in a full attack.
You're not attacking with the shield, meaning no extra attacks are being taken, meaning it's legal to carry it. You can use the shield, but you can't attack with it. In other words, you can have its passive AC bonus, but you can't use Defending with it while using a Two-Handed Weapon to attack as well. Sure, you can threaten with Unarmed Strikes or Armor Spikes, but that doesn't mean you can take an AoO with a weapon that requires a hand when you're using two of those 3+ hands to threaten with that Two-Handed Weapon.
I don't see anything in the FAQ to suggest that it applies only to attacks made on your turn, as you're claiming. In fact, it actually says any extra attacks in the round. This would include attacks not on your turn as well, i.e. Attacks of Opportunity. So this means that not only can you attack as if you didn't have the hands, it means you can't threaten (and thereby make attacks of opportunity) with the hands either.
An unarmed strike and armor spikes requires a hand which is the exact thing that we can't get more of because of vestigial arms. So you're using a weapon that needs a hand(spikes or IUS), while wielding a weapon with two of your two hands to threaten with that two-handed weapon, allowing you to threaten at 10 and 5 feet at the same time.
being able to have a reach weapon and a close weapon is something that is allowed with vestigial arms. Sorry you can't see it. But I'm done trying to explain to someone that doesn't care to be corrected.
An unarmed strike and armor spikes requires a hand which is the exact thing that we can't get more of because of vestigial arms. So you're using a weapon...yes you can, as when you're making the AoO you're only caring about the hand with the Dagger. An AoO isn't an extra attack gained from extra hands. Like I said, you're completely able to wield a longspear in two hands and still threaten with your armor spikes or Improved Unarmed Strikes, thus threatening 10ft and 5ft. Extra attacks are only of concern for a full attack.
Your view almost seems like you're saying you can't get a shield's bonus to AC if you wielded a weapon with both hands as your two hands would be used up and the shield would be left out. Yet gaining the benefit of a shield while using a two handed weapon is something that was intended to be done with this discovery.EDIT: The FAQ doesn't care about you wielding more weapons than normal, only that you can't gain extra attacks in a full attack.
You're not attacking with the shield, meaning no extra attacks are being taken, meaning it's legal to carry it. You can use the shield, but you can't attack with it. In other words, you can have its passive AC bonus, but you can't use Defending with it while using a Two-Handed Weapon to attack as well. Sure, you can threaten with Unarmed Strikes or Armor Spikes, but that doesn't mean you can take an AoO with a weapon that requires a hand when you're using two of those 3+ hands to threaten with that Two-Handed Weapon.
I don't see anything in the FAQ to suggest that it applies only to attacks made on your turn, as you're claiming. In fact, it actually says any extra attacks in the round. This would include attacks not on your turn as well, i.e. Attacks of Opportunity. So this means that not only can you attack as if you didn't have the hands, it means you can't threaten (and thereby make attacks of opportunity) with the hands either.
Since when does an unarmed strike require a hand? You can't kick or use your knees to deliver unarmed strikes? I know the Monk Unarmed Strike description says so, and I don't see any credence to not allow it to other classes.
I suppose I can see how Armor Spikes would require hands, but only in the meta sense. ("Hands," which wouldn't apply to this discussion technically speaking.) But you can substitute that with a multitude of other non-handed weapons, such as Barbazu Beards, Horned Helms, etc., and it still gets the point across. Also, if Armor Spikes require hands to use and wear, then you can't both wear Armor Spikes and wield a Two-Handed Weapons. Notice how silly that logic is? Good, then you'll notice how silly the logic is that Armor Spikes require Hands in order to use.
And guess what? It's fine to use those subjects even with those arms, because without those arms, you could still use those subjects. The FAQ says that you count as not possessing those extra arms for the purposes of granting and performing attacks. All attacks. Not just the ones on your turn, not just the ones outside your turn, not just melee attacks only, not just ranged attacks only, not just attacks with spells, but every attack, on every round, that you can make, is limited as if you didn't possess the discoveries in the first place.
You haven't corrected me once, nor have you addressed the glaring issue that the arms don't allow extra attacks, or means of attacks, for every round, as the FAQ says, and not just your turn only, like you're claiming it's limited to. I'd care to be corrected if it was actually done in the first place. But it hasn't, and until you provide evidence or some similar-leveled insight on your argument, it's not going to.
Well, that's a compelling, rules, based reason. I have to admit, I hadn't read that FAQ super-closely recently.
Can you show me a compelling rules-based reason why not?
The rules interaction you propose is explicitly prohibited. From the FAQ:
"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."
So then does this mean dragons with a gore attack now have to chose between that or the bite or normal dragons between claws and wing attacks? (food for thought)
So then does this mean dragons with a gore attack now have to chose between that or the bite or normal dragons between claws and wing attacks? (food for thought)Well, that's a compelling, rules, based reason. I have to admit, I hadn't read that FAQ super-closely recently.
Can you show me a compelling rules-based reason why not?
The rules interaction you propose is explicitly prohibited. From the FAQ:
"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."
That FAQ refers specifically to the Vestigial Arms and Tentacle discoveries.
I believe that if a Half Orc takes the Razor Tusk Feat, acquires a Helm of the Mammoth Lord, and takes a level in White Haired Witch, he or she can make a Hair Attack, a Gore Attack, and a Bite attack all as part of the Full Attack Action.
I wouldn't be so permissive about combining Gore attacks with Bite attacks, the same way you wouldn't use Slam attacks with Claw attacks, or using Claws with Spiked Gauntlets. I imagine there are several others who are just as limiting.
If there were multiple in-book examples where creatures are using both Gore and Bite attacks, then I can see it. But otherwise, probably not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Umm, did you just endorse Stat Blocks as an official rules source?
Well, it is an officially printed source made by Paizo which has creatures created according to the rules Paizo established.
Essentially, if they can't get it right when making characters, how can they expect us to do so?
So overall, it is at least fairly solid supporting evidence, despite the fact that it is not a final definitive statement. Of course, even those are not given much respect around here (see: vestigial arm FAQ).
I often use stat blocks for certain questions like "do single attack animal companions still keep the x1.5 bonus when they get an extra attack via multi attack" (it appears they do, since that is how the str bonus was played on a dire bat owned by an uskerwood druid)
Note that I said multiple. Singular instances probably wouldn't apply.
Note that I said multiple. Singular instances probably wouldn't apply.
You mean like gargoles, Forest Dragons, Sea Dragons, Sky Dragons, Underworld Dragon and Sovereign Dragons? Also Spirit Oni, Kalavakus, Half-Fiend Minotaur and Catoblepas. Sure there is more that can be dug up.
First point -- Why can't you add claws to your feet? Eagles, harpies, perytons, and other winged bipeds have claws on their feet. So if you naturally have claws on your hands, why can't you add them to your feet?
Second point -- if you are a centaur or a lamia or a liontaur (wemic), then you already have feet attacks (hooves or claws). So you CAN certainly add claws to your hands, right?
Okay, so maybe the answer is that claws on your feet are talons? But if so, why does the lamia (and lions and tons of quadrupeds) have claws instead of talons? What's the difference between claws and talons, anyway? Is there one?
The magic item Talons of Leng (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateEquipment/wondrousItems/hands.h tml#talons-of-leng) use the hand slot and give you claw attacks. What's that mean? "Claws" and "Talons" mean the same thing?
I do think that if you have claws (or talons) and you gain a new set of claws, then you can use them only if you have an unused set of limbs. But on humanoids, I fail to see why you cannot use your new claws on your feet.
Can you use magic gloves or gauntlets while attacking with claws? Can you wear boots or shoes while attacking with talons (feet claws)?
Yeah, I stopped looking in the PRD after I hit double digits Avoron. ;)
The Archives of Nethys search feature works much better for this sort of purpose.
I did a PRD search so no one could complain that the examples where from books with less oversight/editing. 10 from the core books should be convincing.
Thanks Avoron! It does sound as if the "Talons of Leng" magic item is very poorly named.
It seems one could imagine a bipedal creature with talons and claws.
And there is nothing illegal with a lamia sorcerer gaining claws on hands from her bloodline and claws from her race on her feet (forepaws). or a wemic!
And to answer the original question, if you are a humanoid with claws from two sources, you have no choice/option but to use the better claw.
Hey! The Totem Transformation of the Druidic Eagle Shaman option grants "natural weapons (bite [1d4], 2 talons [1d4] for a Medium shaman." Those are TALONS granted, so they are on the feet! A Dragon Bloodline Eagle Shaman human could have claws AND talons (and a bite) and get five natural attacks a round as a full attack, right?
Can you use talons with boots? Claws with gauntlets?
If you have previously cast Produce Flame, how many of those natural attacks gain the extra +1d6 fire damage? How about Chill Touch? If you cast Produce Flame and then Chill Touch, can thoe stack?