| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Now that the Alien Archive is out, we have a few more playable races with a natural weapon perk. However, these new natural weapon stat blocks are much more specific than their Vesk counterpart in the Core Rule Book.
For example, the Reptoid is listed as having a slashing attack at 1d3 + 1.5 x CL (at 3rd) due to claws. The Nuar have horns which also specify piercing.
So now with the new examples of natural weapons, does the Vesk ability require a descriptor? Is the Vesk ability a bludgeoning attack (tail slap), slashing attack (claw swipe), or piercing attack (bite)? Does it stack with Improved Unarmed Strike as a rules-as-intended effect vs its rules-as-written entry? If the latter is true, then can the new races with the same feature also make use of the Improved Unarmed Strike feat in this manner (to improve the die from 1d3 while keeping the 1.5xCL damage)?
|
..... Oldskool, I have to congratulate you because you have solved many doubts in one.
i have the same question. or rather, I had.
SRC 190 - unarmed strikes: An unarmed strike can be dealt with any limb or appendage. Unarmed strikes deal nonlethal damage, and the damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus to weapon damage rolls. SRC 255 (reach and threatened square - you threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn (the exception is unarmed strikes—if you’re making unarmed strikes, you don’t threaten other squares).
First, We are forgetting that the unarmed strike (mee too) is a it's a kind of weapon.
Uncategorized Weapons: The following weapons are not considered to be a part of any other weapon category, and they follow the normal rules for weapons unless defined otherwise in their descriptions.
And is afected by the weapons feats.
we have the bad habit of using the rules of the Pathfinder to explain the rules of Starfinder, when, although they are brother games, they do not use the same rules.
and i did not understand why the vesk's natural weapons.
Natural weapon: Vesk are always considered armed. They can deal 1d3 lethal damage with unarmed strikes.
until now.
Alien archive 155. NATURAL WEAPONS (EX) Natural weapons (and natural attacks), such as acid spit, bite, claw, or slam don’t require ammunition and can’t be disarmed or sundered.
Natural Weapon is a Extraordinary ability.
Extraordinary Abilities (Ex) Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical. They cannot be disrupted in combat as spells can, they are not subject to dispelling, and they function normally in areas where magic is suppressed or negated. Despite not qualifying as magical, some extraordinary abilities may break the laws of physics. The text of an extraordinary ability indicates what type of action is required to use it, as well as how often the creature can use it. If an extraordinary ability doesn’t specify what type of action is required to activate it, it requires a standard action. The DC of an extraordinary ability is typically equal to 10 + half the level of the creature using it + the creature’s relevant ability score modifier, as detailed in the ability’s description. Extraordinary abilities are often denoted with the abbreviation “Ex” in parentheses next to the ability’s name.
My Conclusion:
the Vesk (the core best option) have a Natural Weapon.
He can make a "Normal" unarmed strike (for example a punch) whit the normal rules for unarmed strike (no threaten, non lethal and archaic) but, he can make a Special Unarmed Strike (natural weapon ratial trait), letal, considered armed and no archaic.
My Conclusion:
the Vesk (the core best option) have a Natural Weapon.
He can make a "Normal" unarmed strike (for example a punch) whit the normal rules for unarmed strike (no threaten, non lethal and archaic) but, he can make a Special Unarmed Strike (natural weapon ratial trait), letal, considered armed and no archaic.
I feel that is the intent of Vesk natural weapons and unarmed strike separation.
However, it is also fair to say:
Vesk can make an unarmed strike that is lethal with a special modifier to Weapon Specialization [1.5 times Character Level], period. There are no rules or statements that require the player to specify this "unarmed strike" is blugeoning, slashing, piercing, or an acid spit. Therefore, Improved Unarmed Strike should apply equally to this EX ability.
It is fair to say:
A Nuar, or Reptoid, can make an unarmed strike which causes piercing/slashing damage with a special modifier to Weapon Specialization, period. Again, there is nothing in this ability that actually limits a Nuar player to piercing with horns, or Reptoids slashing with claws.
The details of how these unarmed "natural" attacks are accomplished are left vague which I find problematic. I assume Nuar and Reptoids use the natural weapons described in their entries. However, their actual racial trait's don't specifically call it out. We're supposed to use "common sense", as if that really exists, and apply reasonable logic. However, the numerous posts about unarmed strikes illustrate the intent is left open to interpretation.
To throw my 2 cents I believe it is that the war like race is just lethal even when unarmed. I liken it to Klingons in star trek. Now this is only because of this thread that I looked into it, otherwise I thought it was a natural weapon.
To throw my 2 cents I believe it is that the war like race is just lethal even when unarmed. I liken it to Klingons in star trek. Now this is only because of this thread that I looked into it, otherwise I thought it was a natural weapon.
I think that is how a lot of people interpret it. I'd have an easier time agreeing with that view point if the entirety of the descriptions and effects were consistent. However, they aren't.
Vesk's natural weapons as described under the EX racial trait can probably be intrepreted as war-like race that is really lethal when unarmed. However, that ignores several points.
First, this logic ignores Vesk are described as having claws, tails, and teeth in their physical description.
Second, Alien Archive defines Natural Weapons as being things like claws, teeth, horns, or even acid spit (it's not an all inclusive list).
Third, the description of natural weapons trends towards the notion that such attack methods *are not* archaic. They do full damage against foes in common campaign armor sets (aka, futuristic armor).
Fourth, "unarmed" is mostly referenced as requiring a free *hand* which does not threaten adjacent squares *and* it's damage is reduced when used against futuristic armor (to the tune of -5).
Fifth, Improved Unarmed Strike is addressing "unarmed", it mentions the free hands issue, removes that limitation, expands the use of appropriate fighting appendages (like kicks with legs), further defines that grapples require *hands*, adds lethality to the strikes, increases the damage dice on a scale, and so on, but keeps the attack mode as archaic.
So if people only zero in on the term "unarmed" in every natural weapons listing in this game, like many seem to do, then you get into discussion where people try to pull off the following...
"My Nuar, Space Minotaur, is taking Improved Unarmed Strike to enhance it's Natural Weapons. You see, the description says "Nuar are always considered armed. They can do piercing damage with their unarmed strikes, and they gain a unique form of weapon specialization at 3rd level that lets them use 1.5 x character level instead of regular character level with Natural Weapons". So now my Nuar martial artist is going to punch the bad guy as piercing damage with a higher than normal weapon specialization bonus and the feat's enhanced dice range. Cool right?"
^ Stuff like that annoys me. Because what is happening here is the player in this description is focusing *only* on what the natural weapons racial trait says as it is written only in the race's entry. However, it's not explicitly described in the natural weapon text. So, the above example is 100% legal per RAW, but that doesn't make it any less obnoxious.
Or, this is not 100% legal by rules-as-intended *if* you take the time to read the physical description of the race *and* the Alien Archives definition of what natural weapons are. Alien Archive lends me to question are natural weapons a separate thing from traditional "unarmed strike" concepts? Because one of these two methods is archaic and the other is not. Does the natural weapon text override IUS or work with it?
It seems to me most interpretations just cherry pick the best parts of Natural Weapons and Improved Unarmed Strike and combine them without really thinking if they're intended to be different.
I guess the other thing I find annoying about it is all of this feeling debating who gets to be the smartest dumb person. Because at the end of the day unarmed damage, improved unarmed damage, and natural weapons all pale in comparison with actual weapons.
Anyhoo, I know that not what you bargained for, but that's my soapbox. ;)
I think there would be a lot less of this if IUS explicitly just dropped the archaic descriptor. Because it doesn't you have people trying to justify natural weapons and IUS combining as otherwise IUS is a terrible feat and the natural weapon is pretty meh as well.
I think there would be a lot less of this if IUS explicitly just dropped the archaic descriptor. Because it doesn't you have people trying to justify natural weapons and IUS combining as otherwise IUS is a terrible feat and the natural weapon is pretty meh as well.
Maybe.
The cynic in me thinks people will always try to put lipstick on a pig.
I am not meaning to pick a fight, oldskool, but I think it is perfectly valid. I can see these problems in sfs, which may be where you are coming from, but as a gm myself, i see no problem. But I can see minmaxers trying to use this in sfs.
To explain further it would require a feat to get the extra dice. The player must spend a resource, the feat, to get the extra dice. Now they have a natural weapon that does not go around DR. Also as the gm I would want an explanation as to why the character, not the player, went that route.
One thing I have noticed in starfinder, unless it is written as an exception to the rule follow the rule. Unarmed damage is bludgeoning and the vesk ability does not specifically change it. Just something to note. Now this could be an error but I am going with Klingons :)
I am not meaning to pick a fight, oldskool, but I think it is perfectly valid. I can see these problems in sfs, which may be where you are coming from, but as a gm myself, i see no problem. But I can see minmaxers trying to use this in sfs.
No worries. I don't see your comments as picking a fight. I hope that's not how you took my response. I didn't intend to state that as a means of debate. I just expressed the rationale as to why I have the conclusions on this topic that I do.
I think for 99% of the GM's they will hand wave this as not being a big deal and allow it. That's perfectly fine. They aren't wrong. You aren't wrong. Neither I am when it comes to how I run my own games. It's nothing more than a difference of opinion.
And this thread was necro'ed from last October when I wrote it addressing that the Vesk ability doesn't change or define a descriptor (bludgeoning, slash, etc.) within the natural weapons text.
Anyway, thanks for the added discussion. Hopefully they will be of use to someone. Let's hopefully see this topic return to its grave.