| WelshmanJones |
So I'm currently playing a character with two claw attacks. I'm also playing with the Revised Action Economy rules from Pathfinder Unchained.
My question is, can I use both my claw attacks and make a combat maneuver (that is used in place of an attack, such as trip) on the same turn? If I can, do the claw attacks become secondary attacks? If I can't, and I replace one claw attack for a maneuver, does the remaining claw attack become secondary?
| Johnnycat93 |
It takes all 3 of your actions in a turn to make use of all of your natural weapons. You would't have any actions available to use a maneuver in addition to those attacks. If you perform the maneuver in place of one of your attacks, your remaining natural attacks retain their previous classification as primary or secondary. The only time that would change is if you were mixing natural attacks and weapon attacks in which case all of your primary attacks would become secondary.
| WelshmanJones |
It takes all 3 of your actions in a turn to make use all of your natural weapons.
I believe that's correct, but only if you make 3 or more attacks with natural attacks. If you only have two natural attacks (such as in my case), then you only spend two actions. If you have one natural attack, you spend one action. If you have 10 natural attacks, you need to spend all three actions. I don't recall the rules stating this exactly as I said it, but otherwise it wouldn't make sense for you to have to spend 3 acts to perform one natural attack (which is what it sounds like you're suggesting).
| Johnnycat93 |
Make All Natural Attacks (Attack; 3 Acts): A creature that is using only its natural attacks can make all its natural attacks with this action instead of making separate attacks with attack simple actions.
If you aren't using this action then you are taking a cumulative -5 for each attack action after the first. Even with two natural attacks, it's better to use the 3 act option to avoid the penalty.
| WelshmanJones |
Quote:Make All Natural Attacks (Attack; 3 Acts): A creature that is using only its natural attacks can make all its natural attacks with this action instead of making separate attacks with attack simple actions.If you aren't using this action then you are taking a cumulative -5 for each attack action after the first. Even with two natural attacks, it's better to use the 3 act option to avoid the penalty.
I never understood it to be meant this way, nor have I used it this way, since natural attacks (in the regular action economy) don't take penalties like this.
Assuming we use your interpretation, would this mean my options are:
Claw/Claw (3 acts)
or
Claw/Maneuver (2 or 3 acts)?
Daniel Yeatman
|
If we put this information together, then yes, you could use one natural attack at full bonus, one at -5, and the maneuver at -10. You could always switch up the order, of course.
Essentially, if you use a Claw and one Maneuver, that's two acts. If you use two Claws and a Maneuver, that's 3 acts. Otherwise, you could attack with both claws with no -5 penalty on the second attack as 3 acts. I hope I'm being clear.
| Johnnycat93 |
Your options are:
Use the attack simple act (and attack equivalent simple acts) to take each action individually (Claw/Claw -5/Maneuver -10).
Use the Make All Natural Attacks option and substitute one of attacks with a maneuver like trip. You'll have one claw attack and a maneuver, both at Full BAB.
| WelshmanJones |
If we put this information together, then yes, you could use one natural attack at full bonus, one at -5, and the maneuver at -10. You could always switch up the order, of course.
Essentially, if you use a Claw and one Maneuver, that's two acts. If you use two Claws and a Maneuver, that's 3 acts. Otherwise, you could attack with both claws with no -5 penalty on the second attack as 3 acts. I hope I'm being clear.
This makes sense, thank you, however I don't understand the reasoning behind this decision. You don't take penalties for having 5 claw attacks, but for some reason using a combat maneuver with your natural attacks suddenly imparts this penalty? Doesn't seem logical, unless I'm missing something here.
| WelshmanJones |
2) You're using different actions. You can avoid a penalty to your maneuver as long as you are using a maneuver that can be used in place of an attack (such as trip or disarm), but you will have to give up one of your attacks to do so.
I was under the impression that two claw attacks meant two acts, and therefore the third remaining act could be used for a combat maneuver. I guess not.
| Johnnycat93 |
Ok, I think there's some sort of misunderstanding here:
You can take up to three simple acts with the (attack) subtype on your turn. Each one you take after the first has a cumulative -5 penalty. This includes performing a maneuver. In this case it doesn't matter how many claw attacks you have. Your routine using only simple acts can be claw/claw/claw or maneuver/maneuver/maneuver or claw/maneuver/claw, it doesn't matter as long as you don't exceed your assigned number of acts for a turn (three). Using only simple acts the second attack action will always have a -5 penalty and the third will have a -10 penalty.
The other option is "Make All Natural Attacks ". There is no partial cost for this - it always costs three acts. Doesn't matter if you have 2 claws or 99 claws, if you're using this action then you're using all three of your acts for the round. The trade-off is that you're only using one action with the (attack) subtype, so you do not suffer the -5 penalty mentioned above. This means that all attacks taken using "Make All Natural Attacks" are at full BAB. Going with that, certain maneuvers that can be performed in place of an attack (trip, disarm) can be used with this action. These are also not separate actions in the context of the revised action economy. If you have 37 natural attacks and use Make All Natural Attacks, you can choose to make 36 of those natural attacks and 1 trip attempt (sacrificing an attack to do so) without any penalties to any of those attacks or maneuver attempts.
| Atarlost |
1) The revised action economy is poorly conceived
I think the real problem may be with natural attacks being poorly conceived. They reduce the range of relevant armor values by lacking iteratives and tend to make balancing trickier by being not quite comparable to weapon and unarmed attacks.