This is NOT the "flurry with natural attacks" question. I consider that answered.
Specific case: I have a Tengu Ninja with a bite and two claw attacks. Can I make an unarmed strike with my feet (which I can do according to all the rules) and then make all 3 of my natural attacks? The rules state that if you attack with a weapon in a hand, then you can't use that hand again. I'm not.
If I understand the rest of the rules, my natural attacks would be at -5 each because they'd then be secondary attacks. Are their any feats that could offset that? Two Weapon fighting?
Apologies in advance if this has been addressed elsewhere. Thanks.
Flagging moved to rules forum.
There is no way I know of to improve the -5 for secondary natural attacks.
Not without multi attack.
Gary Bush wrote: Flagging moved to rules forum.
There is no way I know of to improve the -5 for secondary natural attacks.
Agreed - you are welcome to use unarmed attack (and any iteratives with IUS), but that will put your natural attacks at -5 to hit and half str bonus on damage. That might be worth it if you are getting sneak attack die, holy AOMF +2d6, chomping your way through mirror images, or have so much +hit that you are only missing on a 1!
Your GM may allow you to take the Multiattack feat, which would decrease the secondary natural attack penalty to -2.
Multiattack is the feat you need. It's not available to PCs in PFS though because it's from the Bestiary.
I think there's still one way to get Multiattack in PFS - it's a feat in the Natural Weapon Ranger Combat Style chain. You need 10 levels of ranger (or slayer), so it won't work all that well if you're wanting to be a ninja. Although slayer does get sneak attack.
There is a point of view that Multiattack is not allowed even by the Ranger Combat Style (because it's in the Bestiary and not called out as allowed in Additional Resources). I don't agree with that point of view myself, but it's there. The opposing point of view is that Multiattack is a feat in the Natural Weapon Ranger Combat Style and that Combat Style is expressly PFS legal.
Thanks everyone for the suggestions.
Technically, if you are getting your Unarmed Strikes via levels in Monk or Brawler, there is no -5 penalty. Monk and Brawler unarmed strikes count as Natural Attacks
Monk wrote: A monk’s unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons. It's what the rules say.
Brawler wrote: A brawler’s unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons. Another way you could use your iterative attack slots is if you dipped into Alchemist and took the Tentacle Discovery. Alchemal Tentacles do not give you an extra attack slot: you use your regular attacks. But if you are building a character around Natural Attacks, you weren't using those iterative attack slots, anyway. And even though Alchemal tentacles don't have an attack slot all their own like other natural attacks, they are still natural attacks, and don't interfere with your other natural attacks.
"For the purpose of spells and effects". It counts as a weapon attack as far as determining your full attack routine goes.
toastedamphibian wrote: "For the purpose of spells and effects". It counts as a weapon attack as far as determining your full attack routine goes. Yes. That sentence just means you can use either a Magic Weapon or a Magic Fang spell on them.
What would be an example of an effect (as opposed to a spell)?
Ascalaphus wrote: toastedamphibian wrote: "For the purpose of spells and effects". It counts as a weapon attack as far as determining your full attack routine goes. Yes. That sentence just means you can use either a Magic Weapon or a Magic Fang spell on them. But it doesn't say that. It doesn't say "For the purposes of Spells and effects that enhance them, Monk Unarmed Strikes count as both manufactured and natural weapons."
What it says is that Monk Unarmed Strikes count as both natural and manufactured weapons for the purposes of spells and effects that improve natural and manufactured weapons.
In other words, since a Claw is a natural weapon, Monk Unarmed Strikes count as natural weapons for the purposes of effects that improve Claws.
Meanwhile "effect" is not a narrowly-defined game term. It is an English Language word that can mean a lot of things, not just magic dweomers.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Be warned, Very few people follow Scott's view of this. Should you adopt it you'll either need to follow the "wrong" view, be the GM, or find like minded people.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
And if you try it at pfs, be prepared to be told your character is illegal.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
In the past, Scott has made arguments with regards to the meaning of statement in question. Those arguments are not generally accepted by the majority of people on the forums and do not seem to follow the "intent" of the rules.
So proceed at your own peril.
It's hard to give a list of things that are included in that statement, it's much easier to discuss on an individual basis whether it applies.
For example, improve natural attack wont apply to your unarmed strike.
Conjoy wrote: What would be an example of an effect (as opposed to a spell)? If you multiclass into Magus, for example, and use a pool point to enchant your fist, that's an effect that isn't a spell.
(Inb4: Not going to try to argue the merits or demerits of such a combination. Just providing an example.)
Imbicatus wrote: And if you try it at pfs, be prepared to be told your character is illegal. I've proven again and again that it is legal.
Pathfinder Society is a venue in which all players are supposed to be able to play their own way as long as what they are doing is legal. It doesn't matter if I am the only person in the world feels this way. I have demonstrated that it is legal, I have the right to play the game the way I want to in Pathfinder Society. Minorities are not supposed to be persecuted just for being in the minority.
Chess Pwn wrote: Be warned, Very few people follow Scott's view of this. Should you adopt it you'll either need to follow the "wrong" view, be the GM, or find like minded people. You have never established that the majority of Pathfinder players hold 1 view or another, only that it is stongly disliked by a small cadre of contributors to these forums.
Claxon wrote: In the past, Scott has made arguments with regards to the meaning of statement in question. Those arguments are generally accepted by the majority of people on the forums and do not seem to follow the "intent" of the rules.
So proceed at your own peril.
It's hard to give a list of things that are included in that statement, it's much easier to discuss on an individual basis whether it applies.
For example, improve natural attack wont apply to your unarmed strike.
It's not all that perilous.
The OP is proposing a Tengu with Claws who already has 3 attacks/round. At this point his worst case scenario is that he'll have to settle for 3 attacks instead of 4.
If he isn't playing Pathfinder Society, then he can just take Mulitiattack, and there is no problem.
The way I would make a character like this is to dip a level in White Haired Witch and get a Hair Attack, and also acquire a Helm of the Mammoth Lord and get a Gore Attack. So, if a PFS GM illegally imposes a -5 to attack on me then, now we're talking about my character settling for 5 attacks/round instead of 6. Boo hoo.
The 'Hair gets a free (not even Free!) Grapple with every hit, so go ahead and wear Armor Spikes and do a little extra damage with every hit, and since the Grapple Check is a separate attack roll, it gets Sneak Attack Damage, too. I already recommended the OP take an Alchemal Tentacle, which uses the regular attack slot that is used for manufactured weapons, but since it is still a Natural Weapon, the Tentacle won't impose any penalties on the other Natural Attacks even if the MUS did. So now we aren't even talking about a loss of attacks unless the OP wanted to make off hand attacks, too. And if it's your recommendation that the OP put off taking 2 Weapon Fighting until he has a sense of how his community feels about it, I think that's a good recommendation.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I will say he can legally make two unarmed strikes (with appropriate TWF) penalties and then make 2 claws attacks and a bite. He will take the -5 on the natural attacks and half the strength on each.
It's probably more effective to do the natural attacks alone, but he could do it.
As for the "peril" part I was more referring to what I consider to be your overly liberal interpretation of "For the purpose of spells and effects", what that entails and what effects it can have. It doesn't have an effect on the specific question the OP asked, but could have other ramifications for the OP's build.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Scott Wilhelm wrote: Imbicatus wrote: And if you try it at pfs, be prepared to be told your character is illegal. I've proven again and again that it is legal.
Pathfinder Society is a venue in which all players are supposed to be able to play their own way as long as what they are doing is legal. It doesn't matter if I am the only person in the world feels this way. I have demonstrated that it is legal, I have the right to play the game the way I want to in Pathfinder Society. Minorities are not supposed to be persecuted just for being in the minority.
No, it is not legal, you are twisting the meaning of "for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance manufactured or natural weapons."
That rules text ONLY applies to spells or feats that give bonuses to natural attacks, and it only applies to the unarmed strike. It doesn't make an unarmed strike a natural weapon, and it doesn't affect any other natural weapons.
All it does is allow a monk IUS to benefit from spells such as strong jaw, sense weakness, magic weapon, and so forth, or to benefit from feats such as eldritch claws.
Imbicatus wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote: Imbicatus wrote: And if you try it at pfs, be prepared to be told your character is illegal. I've proven again and again that it is legal.
Pathfinder Society is a venue in which all players are supposed to be able to play their own way as long as what they are doing is legal. It doesn't matter if I am the only person in the world feels this way. I have demonstrated that it is legal, I have the right to play the game the way I want to in Pathfinder Society. Minorities are not supposed to be persecuted just for being in the minority.
No, it is not legal, you are twisting the meaning of "for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance manufactured or natural weapons."
That rules text ONLY applies to spells or feats that give bonuses to natural attacks, and it only applies to the unarmed strike. It doesn't make an unarmed strike a natural weapon, and it doesn't affect any other natural weapons.
All it does is allow a monk IUS to benefit from spells such as strong jaw, sense weakness, magic weapon, and so forth, or to benefit from feats such as eldritch claws. I'm not twisting anything. Keep your personal remarks to yourself. I am giving my best advice in good faith based on what the rules literally say.
Imbicatus wrote: No, it is not legal Prove it. I have proven that it is legal.
Imbicatus wrote: That rules text ONLY applies to spells or feats That is not what the rules text says. It says spells and effects, not spells and feats.
Monk, Unarmed Strike wrote: spells and effects I'm going by what the rules really say. I'm not rewriting the rules with my wishful thinking. I wish I were wrong: that way I could stop bringing it up. But the OP asked, and I had to answer with truth and facts. Bring the facts! Prove me wrong! Please!
Imbicatus wrote: it only applies to the unarmed strike.... it doesn't affect any other natural weapons. It doesn't say that. Show me where it says that.
Monk, Unarmed Strike wrote: A monk’s unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons. It doesn't say "for the purposes of spells and effects that might affect them, a Monk Unarmed Strike counts as both a manufactured and a natural weapon." It just doesn't.
It says "for the purposes of improving natural weapons." Claws and Bites are natural weapons.
Imbicatus wrote: It doesn't make an unarmed strike a natural weapon I'm not saying that it is, but I am saying that it counts as one for the purpose of effects that enhance natural weapons. Why do I think this? Well,
Monk, Unarmed Strike wrote: A monk’s unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons. That is what the rules really say.
I have proven this time and time again.
Claxon wrote: As for the "peril" part I was more referring to what I consider to be your overly liberal interpretation of "For the purpose of spells and effects", what that entails and what effects it can have. It doesn't have an effect on the specific question the OP asked, but could have other ramifications for the OP's build. It is specifically to the OP's build that I assert that is not all that perilous. We're only talking about 1 attack out of many, and there are many reasons for the OP to take a level in Monk or Brawler even if he can't throw the Unarmed Strike into his Full Attack exactly they way I said. And even if that is the case, there are easy workarounds, some of which I offered.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Unarmed strikes, even from monks and brawlers, are weapons, not natural attacks. They're on the weapon equipment chart. They're called out in the section on light weapons as always being light.
It's all one sentence:
"A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons."
You can't split it up into individual pieces to fit the mold you want, you have to take the WHOLE sentence.
A full-attack action is not an effect.
Ectar wrote: Unarmed strikes, even from monks and brawlers, are... not natural attacks. I'm not saying that they are. I'm saying they treated as such for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve natural or manufactured weapons.
Just like you said.
Ectar wrote: It's all one sentence:
"A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons."
We're in complete agreement so far.
Ectar wrote: You can't split it up into individual pieces to fit the mold you want, you have to take the WHOLE sentence. Explain.
Ectar wrote: A full-attack action is not an effect. While I hope my full attack would have an effect on whatever I was attacking, I wouldn't say so either. I would say that it is the Full Attack and the Natural Attacks that Full Attack is made of that are being affected by the addition of more attacks, either natural or manufactured. For the purposes of enhancing the Natural Weapons in the OP's Full Attack, the rules say that Monk Unarmed Strikes are treated as Natural Weapons.
Just like you said,
Ectar wrote: It's all one sentence:
"A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons."
|
6 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Sometimes I wonder if Scott Wilhelm is just trolling us.
In thread after thread he takes a stance which is only 'by the rules' if you look at the rules sideways and while squinting.
I have stopped arguing with him on topics, it just isn't worth it.
Conjoy wrote: What would be an example of an effect (as opposed to a spell)? As far as I have been able to determine, "effect" is not a specifically-defined game term. So it is just an English Language word.
Google wrote: ef·fect
əˈfekt/
noun
noun: effect; plural noun: effects
1.
a change that is a result or consequence of an action or other cause.
So, the OP can make a Full Attack of 2 Claws and a Bite. The rules say he can add 1 or 2 Unarmed Strikes, which would have the effect of increasing the maximum damage his full attack could do: 1d3+Bonuses.
But since Unarmed Strikes count as manufactured weapons, they would also have the effect of sort of demoting the claws and bite to Secondary Natural Attacks with -5's on the attack roll and the Strength bonuses diminished by half.
However, if the OP took a level in Monk, his PC would gain the Class Ability of having his Unarmed Strikes count as either manufactured or Natural weapons for the purposes of effects that improve his natural weapons.
As it was pointed out, one of the things that this means is that he might benefit from the Magic Weapon Spell, which does not affect Natural Weapons, and from the Magic Fang Spell, which does not affect manufactured weapons. This means that MUS count as one or the other to the advantage of the Monk, not constantly as both to both the advantage and disadvantage.
So for the purposes of adding Monk Unarmed Strikes to the Full Attack of a character who has Natural Attacks, this Monk Class Ability allows the Unarmed Strike to count as a Natural Weapon, having the effect of relieving the other Natural Weapons of the penalties, and not as manufactured Weapons, which would impose the penalties and neither enhance nor improve the other Natural Weapons at all!
Enhancment is positive. By your own reading, they are treated as natural when ENHANCING natural attacks. A potential penalty on attack rolls is not an enhancing effect, so the rule about treating them as natural does not apply. We are discussing a PENALTY.
Claxon wrote: In the past, Scott has made arguments with regards to the meaning of statement in question. Those arguments... do not seem to follow the "intent" of the rules. Again, I feel compelled to point out that I do not offer my person as evidence, so attacking my person does not weaken my position at all.
That being said, it is fair to say that I am giving my best council in good faith based on what the rules literally say, not on what I conjecture that they must have meant when they said it.
Further, I will say that literal interpretation of these rules the thing I usually do. For the reason given above, but also I believe that in a certain sense, art does not belong the artist after he has finished it. After the artist has finished creating a work of art, it is the viewer/consumer who gets to decide what it means. And it is in the meaning that other people find in the art that gives artwork its value.
Likewise, I put it to you that when I or anyone else finds a new way to play this game that the creators did not intend, we are adding value to the game, and we should be celebrated for it, never attacked for it. If my interpretation of the rules, which I have proven again and again is legal, is unpopular or mechanically problematic, then you should all remember that this is not a problem I created. This is a problem I discovered and have dutifully brought to the attention of the Paizo community, and you should direct your complaints to Paizo Publishing, and your thanks to me.
Ok I've read this like 5 times trying to figure out what is being argued.. As Far as I can tell Scott is saying..
A tengu monk that punches then bites at something does not take the -5 to the bite, because "A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons."
ie a monks strike is a natural weapon..
As a normal unarmed strike is not classed as a natural weapon (Core pg 182.)
Then I would ask what spell or effect is the monks strikes under?
Edit as i was posting.. The monk ability that allows it to be effected then get to effect its attack again? Bonuses of the same type do not stack.
toastedamphibian wrote: Enhancment is positive. By your own reading, they are treated as natural when ENHANCING natural attacks. A potential penalty on attack rolls is not an enhancing effect, so the rule about treating them as natural does not apply. We are discussing a PENALTY. I would say that treating the Monk Unarmed Strike as a Manufactured Weapon has the effect of imposing penalties on the other Natural Weapons. And I would say that treating the Monk Unarmed Strike as a Natural Weapon has the effect of relieving the other Natural Weapons of the penalties. I assert that both of those statements are true, and I believe most people would say that 1 of those statements is true.
Since we know that both Magic Weapon and Magic Fang work on Monk Unarmed Strikes, and we know that each work only on natural or manufactured weapons, and neither works on both, we also know that it is only for improving the natural weapons that MUS count as either natural or manufactured. And in this case, that means that Monk Unarmed Strikes count as Natural and not Manufactured Weapons.
But I said this already.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
The rules for melee combat are not an effect.
While it's frustratingly true that the word "effect" is used frequently in rules text despite not having a definition, that doesn't mean that everything is an effect until proven otherwise. I've always considered effects to be discreet abilities possessed or created by characters, though that's only one view. I do, however, categorically reject the possibility that an effect is anything ever printed anywhere in a Paizo product, so long as it's convenient for the player.
Yuri Sarreth wrote: Ok I've read this like 5 times trying to figure out what is being argued.. As Far as I can tell Scott is saying..
A tengu monk that punches then bites at something does not take the -5 to the bite, because "A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons."
ie a monks strike is a natural weapon..
As a normal unarmed strike is not classed as a natural weapon (Core pg 182.)
Then I would ask what spell or effect is the monks strikes under?
Edit as i was posting.. The monk ability that allows it to be effected then get to effect its attack again? Bonuses of the same type do not stack.
I said this already, too.
The text of the Monk Ability does not limit MUS to be the only possible beneficiaries of the US to be treated as natural or manufactured weapons. It doesn't say, "For the purposes of spells and effects that benefit them, monk unarmed strikes count as either natural or manufactured weapons." It says "treated as manufactured and natural weapons for the purposes of spells and effects that enhance or improve natural or manufactured weapons." In other words, your MUS count as manufactured or natural for the benefit of your Claws and your Bite, not just for the benefit of your Unarmed Strikes.
And again, the reason why I say this is because the rules say it.
The monk ability states it can be effected by things that effect natural weapons.. Nowhere does it say that they are therefore natural weapons in and of themselves..
This is the exception that proves the rule that unarmed strikes are not natural weapons.
Base state: you can attack with your primary natural weapons at full bab
Posible penalty: -5 to attack rolls and half str to damage rolls.
No possibility for this EFFECT to ENHANCE anything. Neither Manufactured nor Natural weapons are being improved. Thus this ability is not applicable.
Quote: A monk’s unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons. Additionally, the ability calls out affects that enhance or improve weapons , not attacks with those weapons.
Illeist wrote: I do, however, categorically reject the possibility that an effect is anything ever printed anywhere in a Paizo product, so long as it's convenient for the player. So do I, but I am not aware of anyone making that claim.
Illeist wrote: The rules for melee combat are not an effect. No, but choosing to add one kind of attack or another another to your Full Attack does cause effects.
Illeist wrote: While it's frustratingly true that the word "effect" is used frequently in rules text despite not having a definition, that doesn't mean that everything is an effect until proven otherwise. I agree. But I have shown that adding one kind of attack vs. another to your Full Attack does cause changes to Natural Attacks that fit the Google definition of "effect."
Illeist wrote: I've always considered effects to be discreet abilities possessed or created by characters I would not say that abilities themselves are effects, but rather it is the changes they cause that are effects.
Yuri Sarreth wrote: The monk ability states it can be effected by things that effect natural weapons.. Nowhere does it say that they are therefore natural weapons in and of themselves..
This is the exception that proves the rule that unarmed strikes are not natural weapons.
What's your point?
I am not aware of anyone claiming that unarmed strikes are natural weapons.
toastedamphibian wrote: Base state: you can attack with your primary natural weapons at full bab
Posible penalty: -5 to attack rolls and half str to damage rolls.
No possibility for this EFFECT to ENHANCE anything.
No! And I have been saying this very thing. Since this effect does not improve your claws, your Monk Unarmed Strikes do not count as manufactured weapons in much the same way that they don't count as manufactured weapons when you cast Magic Fang on them.
toastedamphibian wrote: Additionally, the ability calls out affects that enhance or improve weapons , not attacks with those weapons. Interesting.
I don't think this is a distinction with a difference.
But
Can you demonstrate that the authors are differentiating between Claws and Claw Attacks in a meaningful way?
Scott Wilhelm wrote: toastedamphibian wrote: Base state: you can attack with your primary natural weapons at full bab
Posible penalty: -5 to attack rolls and half str to damage rolls.
No possibility for this EFFECT to ENHANCE anything.
No! And I have been saying this very thing. Since this effect does not improve your claws, your Monk Unarmed Strikes do not count as manufactured weapons in much the same way that they don't count as manufactured weapons when you cast Magic Fang on them.
Incorrect. The effect does not improve anything, so the monk ability is not relevant to the situation at all, and thus has no bearing on determining your attack routine. It would be the same as a non monks. It clearly only applies to effects that enhance or improve.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: toastedamphibian wrote: Additionally, the ability calls out affects that enhance or improve weapons , not attacks with those weapons. Interesting.
I don't think this is a distinction with a difference.
But
Can you demonstrate that the authors are differentiating between Claws and Claw Attacks in a meaningful way? Claws are things that you have, clawing is something you do.
You make natural attacks. You have natural weapons. You recieve moral bonuses on attacks. You get Enhancment bonuses on weaponds, which then apy them to attacks with those weapons. I fail to see the confusion.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Quote: An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon. Therefore, you can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with an unarmed strike. Unarmed strikes do not count as natural weapons Default, not natural. Monk ability allows you to treat it as natural for effects that enhance or improve. Combining unarmed strikes in a full attack does not enhance the unarmed strike (no change) and does not enhance the natural attacks (no change, possible penalty) so the monk exception does not apply.
toastedamphibian wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote: toastedamphibian wrote: Additionally, the ability calls out affects that enhance or improve weapons , not attacks with those weapons. Interesting.
I don't think this is a distinction with a difference.
But
Can you demonstrate that the authors are differentiating between Claws and Claw Attacks in a meaningful way? Claws are things that you have, clawing is something you do.
You make natural attacks. You have natural weapons. You recieve moral bonuses on attacks. You get Enhancment bonuses on weaponds, which then apy them to attacks with those weapons. I fail to see the confusion. It always seemed to me that they were never using natural "weapon" and natural "attack" in distinct, different and disciplined ways, using one term in one place and the other in another, and the 2 are interchangeable. It seems to me that usually if you are putting a bonus on either, the attack or the weapon, it's going on both.
I guess a place with more of a distinction would be Weapon Focus. Say with Weapon Focus Longsword, you get a bonuses on attacks made with any longsword, not just the one.
Tengus' Claws are not the sorts of things they can swap out, though. Improving the Claws is much less different from improving attacks made with them.
But what if we're not talking about Tengu Claws? What if we're talking about a Wild-shaping Druid? Wild-shaped into an Allosaurus or into a Dire Tiger, I guess you are using different Claws, and maybe there is a difference a Druid's ability to make Claw Attacks and the Druid's Claws while in Tiger form.
Huh.
Can you support this idea with further text?
supervillan wrote: There is a point of view that Multiattack is not allowed even by the Ranger Combat Style (because it's in the Bestiary and not called out as allowed in Additional Resources). I don't agree with that point of view myself, but it's there. The opposing point of view is that Multiattack is a feat in the Natural Weapon Ranger Combat Style and that Combat Style is expressly PFS legal. With the revised FAQ ~4 months ago, it technically wasn't legal until I brought it up and PFS powers-that-be stopped by and said that was not their intention.
claudekennilol wrote: supervillan wrote: There is a point of view that Multiattack is not allowed even by the Ranger Combat Style (because it's in the Bestiary and not called out as allowed in Additional Resources). I don't agree with that point of view myself, but it's there. The opposing point of view is that Multiattack is a feat in the Natural Weapon Ranger Combat Style and that Combat Style is expressly PFS legal. With the revised FAQ ~4 months ago, it technically wasn't legal until I brought it up and PFS powers-that-be stopped by and said that was not their intention. Would you mind sharing a link to that? Thanks!
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Huh.
Can you support this idea with further text?
Possibly? But it would require time and effort that I am unwilling to invest at this time.
You requested that someone prove you wrong, and until you can provide a better counter to my primary argument than "No!" I feel that objective to be satisfactorily achieved.
claudekennilol wrote: supervillan wrote: There is a point of view that Multiattack is not allowed even by the Ranger Combat Style (because it's in the Bestiary and not called out as allowed in Additional Resources). I don't agree with that point of view myself, but it's there. The opposing point of view is that Multiattack is a feat in the Natural Weapon Ranger Combat Style and that Combat Style is expressly PFS legal. With the revised FAQ ~4 months ago, it technically wasn't legal until I brought it up and PFS powers-that-be stopped by and said that was not their intention. It was in the PFS FAQ blog post comments. I'm not sure how/where to find that.
toastedamphibian wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Huh.
Can you support this idea with further text?
Possibly? But it would require time and effort that I am unwilling to invest at this time.
You requested that someone prove you wrong, and until you can provide a better counter to my primary argument than "No!" I feel that objective to be satisfactorily achieved. You haven't really made your point until you brought the rules to back it up. And while you inspired an interpretation of the rules that might allow me to drop the argument, you didn't really fully articulate it.
What I was saying is that looking rigorously at the rules, Monk Unarmed strikes count as weapons for the purposes of improving all natural weapons, not just themselves.
Your counter, if I understand you correctly, is that the -5 is a penalty on the Attack, not the weapon itself, that there is RAW difference between a Natural Attack and Natural Weapon, so the improvement I am describing, while it might be there, turns out to be oblique to the imposed penalty, and has no effect on things. For instance, if someone Bestows a Curse on you so you take a -4 on your attack rolls, there is nothing at all wrong with your sword, and an effect that would alleviate your penalty on your sword just would have any effect. This is because there is no penalty on your sword, just on you.
toastedamphibian wrote: Claws are things that you have, clawing is something you do.
You make natural attacks. You have natural weapons. You recieve moral bonuses on attacks. You get Enhancment bonuses on weaponds, which then apy them to attacks with those weapons.
You're not getting full credit here. I even tried to help.
I wrote: Tengus' Claws are not the sorts of things they can swap out, though. Improving the Claws is much less different from improving attacks made with them.
But what if we're not talking about Tengu Claws? What if we're talking about a Wild-shaping Druid? Wild-shaped into an Allosaurus or into a Dire Tiger, I guess you are using different Claws, and maybe there is a difference a Druid's ability to make Claw Attacks and the Druid's Claws while in Tiger form.
But you want more counter evidence from me. So,
I am saying that the writers aren't using "Natural Weapon" vs. "Natural Attack" in rigorous ways. I am saying they are using the 2 interchangeably.
The Universal Monster Rules in the Bestiary don't even consider the possibility that creatures might have Natural Weapons, only Natural Attacks. According to the rules, there may be Creatures with Claws that do not get Claw Attacks, and there might be creatures with no Claws that do get Claw attacks. I can't think of an example of the latter, but the Universal Monster Rules allow for this possibility.
In fact, the rules say that Natural Attacks are made with no weapon at all, natural or otherwise.
Bestiary, Universal Monster Rules, Natural Attacks wrote: natural attacks (attacks made without a weapon). If what you are saying is true, then you pretty much can't use the Amulet of Mighty Fists to give an Enhancement Bonus to Natural Attacks, since the enhancement bonus applies to the weapon, and you don't use the weapon to make a Natural Attack.
Enhancement Bonus wrote: An enhancement bonus represents an increase in the... effectiveness of a weapon, If they are being as rigorous with the rules as you suggest, then you don't use Claws to make Claw Attacks, so even though enhancement bonuses improved the effectiveness of the weapon, increasing the attack and damage bonuses from attacks made with the weapon. If what you are saying is true, then you are technically not making any attacks with your Claws when you make a Claw Attack, so no enhancement bonus. Magic Fang, same probelem: enhancing the weapon, not the attack, so no dice.
Magic Fang wrote: Magic fang gives one natural weapon or unarmed strike of the subject a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. Since your Natural Attack does not use a Weapon, according to the Universal Monster Rules, you don't get a bonus to your Natural Attack from Magic Fang.
I don't think this is the case, and I would be surprised if you or anyone else did. In fact, there is an FAQ that makes the opposite plainly true.
There is another interesting consequence of your interpretation of the difference between Natural Attacks and Natural Weapons. A character with an Alchemal Tentacle does not get an extra attack, the Tentacle Natural Attack. Rather you use your Weapon Attack Slot. This might mean you don't take a -5 on an Alchemal Tentacle Attack, since you aren't using a Tentacle Attack Slot to use it, but if the OP wanted to use his Weapon Attack Slot to make Alchemal Tentacle Attacks, then he could arguably do so without imposing a -5 on his other attacks, or maybe he would, because he is making a Weapon Attack with his Tentacle.
Natural Attacks wrote: Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action (although often a creature must forgo one natural attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a claw, tentacle, or slam). Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their available natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack’s original type. But that being the case, that would also mean that a creature with Claws and 2 Claw Attacks might make 3 attacks/round. 2 Claws Attacks, then a Claw Weapon Attack. Differentiating Natural Weapons from Natural Attacks in this way would even allow for a 4th, off-hand weapon attack. I don't think that is how it is supposed to work at all.
I see problems arising from your interpretation differentiating Natural Attacks and Natural Weapons. I like your argument, but so far, I don't think it really stands up to scrutiny.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Scott Wilhelm wrote: Technically, if you are getting your Unarmed Strikes via levels in Monk or Brawler, there is no -5 penalty. Monk and Brawler unarmed strikes count as Natural Attacks Literally no one plays this way, period.
Anyone reading this should sufficiently detect that this point of view isn't upheld by the rules, by the developers, by the hundreds of PFS GMs, by every home game GM I've played with, and by the vast overwhelming majority of posts on every forum from wizards.com's 3.5 forums from 2000.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
