Natural attacks and BAB (again....)


Rules Questions


Quoting the relevant rule section twice, each time highlighting a different sentence:

Quote:
Natural Attacks: Attacks made with natural weapons, such as claws and bites, are melee attacks that can be made against any creature within your reach (usually 5 feet). These attacks are made using your full attack bonus and deal an amount of damage that depends on their type (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). You do not receive additional natural attacks for a high base attack bonus. Instead, you receive additional attack rolls for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack (as noted by the race or ability that grants the attacks). If you possess only one natural attack (such as a bite—two claw attacks do not qualify), you add 1–1/2 times your Strength bonus on damage rolls made with that attack.
In the previous debates in the messagebase, the quoted rules being discussed invariably include this paragraph up to only the bold-faced sentence above. (I don't know if the section has been expanded in recent years.)
Quote:
Natural Attacks: Attacks made with natural weapons, such as claws and bites, are melee attacks that can be made against any creature within your reach (usually 5 feet). These attacks are made using your full attack bonus and deal an amount of damage that depends on their type (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). You do not receive additional natural attacks for a high base attack bonus. Instead, you receive additional attack rolls for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack (as noted by the race or ability that grants the attacks). If you possess only one natural attack (such as a bite—two claw attacks do not qualify), you add 1–1/2 times your Strength bonus on damage rolls made with that attack.

This boldfaced sentence appears to flatly contradict the immediately preceding one, whose subject (the effects of high attack bonus) it is linking itself to by the use of the leading word "Instead...".


No. "Instead" means "ignore the previous method of gaining additional attacks, this is how natural weapons work". All the 2nd bolded sentence is saying is that if you have multiple natural weapons, like 2 sets of claws, you get 2 attacks (1 with each claw).

For manufactured weapons, you receive additional attacks from BAB.
For natural weapons, you instead receive additional attacks from additional natural weapons.

If you need actual evidence, look at any creature with natural attacks and a base attack bonus high enough to get multiple attacks. You will see such creatures never get additional attacks with their natural weapons from that BAB. Likewise, creatures with multiple natural weapons have multiple attacks despite not having a BAB high enough for that.


A 20th level fighter with 2 claws can make two claw attacks at +20/+20

A 1st level fighter with 2 claws, a bite, and a gore (say a changeling fighter taught to be tusked by the orcs that adopted her* who has a helm of the mammoth lord for some reason) can make 4 natural attacks, each at +1.

*this is probably one of the few acceptable cases of Adopted+Tusked, if you explain it via the changeling's father being an orc.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Jeraa wrote:
Slim Jim wrote:
Natural Attacks wrote:
...You do not receive additional natural attacks for a high base attack bonus. Instead, you receive additional attack rolls for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack....
This (second) sentence appears to flatly contradict the immediately preceding one, whose subject (the effects of high attack bonus) it is linking itself to by the use of the leading word "Instead...".
No. "Instead" means "ignore the previous method of gaining additional attacks, this is how natural weapons work"...

That's not how English grammar works when the word "Instead" is used at the beginning of one sentence immediately following another.

(It's no wonder these rules are F-balls confusing to parse by literate people.)

Quote:
All the 2nd bolded sentence is saying is that if you have multiple natural weapons, like 2 sets of claws, you get 2 attacks (1 with each claw).

Well, that's "all" it would be saying if it hadn't begun with the word "Instead". It should have begun with "You" and marked a new paragraph to clearly distance itself from the previous one's subject. -- But it's still problematic, because it contains the same exact phrasing, "receive additional attacks", as the preceding sentence.

As it stands, a player can very reasonably look at that second sentence and think to himself, "OK, a rhinoceros can't get an extra gore at BAB6 because it has only one horn, but an elephant could because it has two tusks. Works for me!"

Quote:
If you need actual evidence, look at any creature with natural attacks and a base attack bonus high enough to get multiple attacks.

Be that as it may, the existing wording leaves a lot to be desired if it the intent is as you maintain.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.

+1 on instead means
The stat block tells you all the attacks you get regardless of bab.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Slim Jim wrote:

No. "Instead" means "ignore the previous method of gaining additional attacks, this is how natural weapons work"...That's not how English grammar works when the word "Instead" is used at the beginning of one sentence immediately following another.

(It's no wonder these rules are F-balls confusing to parse by literate people.)

As an English major, that instead just means: Instead of the normal. So read it like this: "Instead of gaining additional attacks from increased BAB,..." That is what the literate and linguistic people read it as and is understood by the english language.

Furthermore, the last sentence I left quoted, is EXTREMELY rude and states that everyone telling you that you are wrong and the rules work as they are stated, is illiterate. As they understood it clearly. That is not how you should approach assistance on this website.

TLDR: Jeraa is right. English states what Jeraa said is right. You are just being rude.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Slim Jim wrote:
(It's no wonder these rules are F-balls confusing to parse by literate people.)

Flagged as abusive. If you believe someone is mistaken, politely state your case, there is no need to be passive- (or otherwise) aggressive.

You're wrong about the reading of the sentence though, one possible use of "instead" is "this thing" instead of "that thing", just as Jeraa said.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is it me or are these threads he makes simply a means for him to vent his frustation of supposed pedanticism at other people, instead of them being legitimate questions about the rules, as the subforum was primarily created for?

Well, arguing about what he's already quoted isn't going to do any good as of righ tnow, based on previous history with these threads, so let's go with some of the basics, ignoring Beastiary stuff, and going with a typical humanoid creature.

The rules assume that players are Humanoids. The creature type description tells us what limbs we reasonably have, in the very first sentence, in fact.

Humanoid Type wrote:
A humanoid usually has two arms, two legs, and one head, or a human-like torso, arms, and a head.

Obvious typos aside, we can assume that if a creature has an identical physiology to the bolded part (i.e. two arms, two legs, torso, and head), that they are of the Humanoid type, and therefore have what's bolded as limbs, which can be used to possess and carry out natural attacks.

Taking basic natural attacks, such as claws/slams for arms, we can reasonably assume that the "Instead" clause is for these kinds of attacks, and not for other kinds of attacks (such as with manufactured weapons or spells), meaning that, logically speaking, the "Instead" clause can't be for some other kinds of attacks, and that the normal clause doesn't refer to natural attacks.

In some cases, natural attacks are condensed to a single part of the body. For example, a bite is considered a part of the jaw, instead of it being a part of every single tooth the creature may possess, whereas a claw is considered part of an arm (or similar appendage). Conversely, a creature with multiple horns or tusks does not get multiple gore attacks because they are still attached to the same limb (the head or mouth), which is what is important when designating natural attack locations in relation to limbs on a creature.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Slim Jim wrote:
This boldfaced sentence appears to flatly contradict the immediately preceding one, whose subject (the effects of high attack bonus) it is linking itself to by the use of the leading word "Instead...".

Would you like to say how you think 'instead' works when it appears at the beginning of a sentence?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

When in doubt, just refer to the text in the source of whatever grants the natural attack. It always specifies exactly how many natural attacks you get regardless of details of your anatomy.

For example, a cecaelia has 8 "tentacles" (technically they're arms, because cecaelias are half-octopus and octopi don't have tentacles), but the Blood of the Sea entry reads

Quote:
Cecaelias have two tentacle attacks that deal 1d4 points of damage.

The bestiary entry (for non-PC cecaelias) reads:

Quote:
Melee mwk spear +11/+6 (1d8+4/x3), 2 tentacles +5 (1d4+1 plus grab)

So the part about "how many body parts you have" is sort of misleading anyway, you just get as many natural attacks as the thing granting you the natural attack (your race, your class, a feat, a trait, a spell, a class feature, etc.) says you do and you never get more from having higher BAB.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Instead, we could ignore my post.

/cevah


Slim Jim wrote:
Jeraa wrote:
Slim Jim wrote:
Natural Attacks wrote:
...You do not receive additional natural attacks for a high base attack bonus. Instead, you receive additional attack rolls for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack....
This (second) sentence appears to flatly contradict the immediately preceding one, whose subject (the effects of high attack bonus) it is linking itself to by the use of the leading word "Instead...".
No. "Instead" means "ignore the previous method of gaining additional attacks, this is how natural weapons work"...

That's not how English grammar works when the word "Instead" is used at the beginning of one sentence immediately following another.

(It's no wonder these rules are F-balls confusing to parse by literate people.)

Come again? That's exactly how English grammar usage works when "instead" is used at the beginning of one sentence immediately following another. How else would it work?

Quote:
As it stands, a player can very reasonably look at that second sentence and think to himself, "OK, a rhinoceros can't get an extra gore at BAB6 because it has only one horn, but an elephant could because it has two tusks. Works for me!"

I'd love to see how one would come to that conclusion. Does English work differently where you come from? Just to be clear, this isn't intended to sound sarcastic or insulting--I'm genuinely flummoxed as to your point of view here.

Lantern Lodge Customer Service Manager

Dial back the sarcasm and passive aggressive insults.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Natural attacks and BAB (again....) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.