|
1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
|
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
One tail slap, that's all the tail terror feat gives you. If you had another means of getting a tail slap extra tails might be of use for it but that's all.
No, you get two attacks.
Quote: You can make a tail slap attack with your tail. It does not have you choose a tail to be able to make an attack with. It does not specify your first tail, nor your second tail. Nor does it specify left tail or right tail.
What it does specify is that you can make an tail slap with your tail. Since you have two tails, you can make an attack with both since they are each your tail.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
It says you can make A (as in singular) tail slap with your tail. Not a slap with each of your tails.
You cannot make a Kitsune with 9 tails that gets 9 tail slap attacks.
Anything that grants natural attacks will specify if it grants multiple attacks for multiple limbs
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
yep. pathfinder is a permissive system, which means feats do only what they say they do. it gives you A tail slap, as Slyme pointed out, which means one. doesnt matter which tail you put it on, you get one.
The feat does not say you get one tail attack, but instead it gives you a tail slap with your tail. Therefore, you get a tail slap with each tail that is your tail. Since each of your two tails is your tail, you get an attack with each one. You don't get two tail slaps with one tail, you get a tail slap with that tail, and a tail slap with the other.
I would agree with getting multiple slaps; however, in the original context it applied to a single tail so phrasing it as, "you get 1 tail slap with 1 tail" would be weird; it would also be weird to say, "you get 1 attack with each of your tails", if they only get one. Serpentfolk have a feat with similar language (they also have 1 tail).
Its also important to note it says "your tail" not "your tails".
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
When an ability grants a natural attack, it grants that natural attack without any consideration for the limbs associated with that attack. This concept was first found in 3.x. If you had a collection of abilities that gave you 7 claw attacks in 3.x, you had 7 claw attacks. If you gained three tail attacks as well, you had 7 claw attacks and 3 tail attacks. Those abilities did not care about how many talons, limbs, or fingernails you had.
This was true for Pathfinder as well. Until it wasn't.
Pathfinder changed these rules to take limbs into account as a restriction on natural attacks, adding complexity. Some builds (and monsters) were nerfed and/or made illegal and/or made ambiguous (due to "limbs" not being a game-mechanical concept supported by the game with exception to prehensile hands) as a result. This increased complexity. Advantages from this change have not been described.
That established, restriction is just that: a restriction. It doesn't increase the number of natural attacks granted by natural attack sources. Indeed, it agrees with 3.x in that if something gives you 7 claw attacks you "have" 7 claw attacks. However, you can only generate 1 claw attack in a full attack for every limb that has not produced a claw attack in said full attack, and only certain limbs can produce said claw attacks. . . but you still "have" them.
As such, PF and 3.x are identical in this case: if you are given 1 natural attack from a source, you have 1 natural attack from that source. The number of limbs you have do not increase the number of natural attacks you have though, in PF, they can increase the number of natural attacks you are allowed to utilize.
Otherwise, if you had 3 arms and were given a claw attack, you'd have 3 claw attacks.
N.B.: Many things that give you tail attacks give you tails: that is, a tail is a limb and a natural weapon (once an ability makes it the latter), whereas most natural attacks generators grant a natural weapon but no limbs. As such, getting extra tails from kitsune effects is probably redundant from a natural attack standpoint, unless you can transform them into mouths, legs, or arms.
Temperans wrote: I would agree with getting multiple slaps; however, in the original context it applied to a single tail so phrasing it as, "you get 1 tail slap with 1 tail" would be weird; it would also be weird to say, "you get 1 attack with each of your tails", if they only get one. Serpentfolk have a feat with similar language (they also have 1 tail).
Its also important to note it says "your tail" not "your tails".
Correct, the feats assume one tail, similar to how you're assumed to only have 2 hands as a PC. Similarly, Kasatha function differently from the norm with effects that refer to hands. Likewise, a kitsune with multiple tails functions differently from the norm with effects that refer to tails.
Incidental wrote: As such, PF and 3.x are identical in this case: if you are given 1 natural attack from a source, you have 1 natural attack from that source. The number of limbs you have do not increase the number of natural attacks you have though, in PF, they can increase the number of natural attacks you are allowed to utilize. And this would be true if the feat said "You gain a tail slap natural attack that deals ...".
Instead it says you can make a tail slap with your tail. Similarly, if you gained the ability as a kasatha to hold a two-handed weapon in one hand (from titan mauler), you wouldn't be limited to only holding two-handed weapons in 2 of your hands. Instead you'd be able to hold two-handed weapons in all 4.
willuwontu wrote: Temperans wrote: I would agree with getting multiple slaps; however, in the original context it applied to a single tail so phrasing it as, "you get 1 tail slap with 1 tail" would be weird; it would also be weird to say, "you get 1 attack with each of your tails", if they only get one. Serpentfolk have a feat with similar language (they also have 1 tail).
Its also important to note it says "your tail" not "your tails".
Correct, the feats assume one tail, similar to how you're assumed to only have 2 hands as a PC. Similarly, Kasatha function differently from the norm with effects that refer to hands. Likewise, a kitsune with multiple tails functions differently from the norm with effects that refer to tails. Lets use Kasatha as an example. Kasatha get reduced penalties with 1 extra attack from Two Weapon Fighting because TWF works with 2 hands. If a Kasatha wants to use all of his arms he needs multiweapon fighting because that supports using 3 or more arms for off hand attacks.
Tail Terror is templated for 1 tail attack, just like TWF is templated for 2 hands. A new feat would need to be made that says 'you can make a tail slap attack with each tail" or something similar to enable more than 1 tail slap.
Meirril wrote: willuwontu wrote: Temperans wrote: I would agree with getting multiple slaps; however, in the original context it applied to a single tail so phrasing it as, "you get 1 tail slap with 1 tail" would be weird; it would also be weird to say, "you get 1 attack with each of your tails", if they only get one. Serpentfolk have a feat with similar language (they also have 1 tail).
Its also important to note it says "your tail" not "your tails".
Correct, the feats assume one tail, similar to how you're assumed to only have 2 hands as a PC. Similarly, Kasatha function differently from the norm with effects that refer to hands. Likewise, a kitsune with multiple tails functions differently from the norm with effects that refer to tails. Lets use Kasatha as an example. Kasatha get reduced penalties with 1 extra attack from Two Weapon Fighting because TWF works with 2 hands. If a Kasatha wants to use all of his arms he needs multiweapon fighting because that supports using 3 or more arms for off hand attacks.
Tail Terror is templated for 1 tail attack, just like TWF is templated for 2 hands. A new feat would need to be made that says 'you can make a tail slap attack with each tail" or something similar to enable more than 1 tail slap. You do realize having extra arms already gives you more attacks automatically (see marilith)? That's why multiweapon fighting only reduces the penalties for fighting with multiple arms and doesn't allow you to make more attacks with off hands (just like how two-weapon fighting feat doesn't give you an extra attack, just reduced penalties).
Similarly, tail terror allows you to make a tail slap with your tail, as long as it is your tail. Therefore, since you have two tails, and is your tail, you can make a tail slap with them.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
willuwontu wrote: Similarly, tail terror allows you to make a tail slap with your tail, as long as it is your tail. If having a limb automatically granted a natural attack, then you wouldn't need the feat at all to gain the natural attack.
Tail terror, unlike something like Two Weapon Fighting, does not reduce penalties from something you already have. It gives you something you didn't have before.
What it gives you is an attack with your tail. And in this case the 'a' is clearly singular, meaning you get one natural attack from taking this feat.
Dave Justus wrote: willuwontu wrote: Similarly, tail terror allows you to make a tail slap with your tail, as long as it is your tail. If having a limb automatically granted a natural attack, then you wouldn't need the feat at all to gain the natural attack.
Tail terror, unlike something like Two Weapon Fighting, does not reduce penalties from something you already have. It gives you something you didn't have before.
What it gives you is an attack with your tail. And in this case the 'a' is clearly singular, meaning you get one natural attack from taking this feat. No, what it grants is a tail slap attack with your tail, not a tail slap natural attack. If it's your tail, you get a tail slap with it. As in a singular tail slap with your tail, for each tail that is your tail.
Since you are mimicing a Kobald, who only has one tail, one is all you get.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
As others have said, tail terror specifies "a tail attack" and not, say, "tail attacks" or "one attack per tail".
It doesn't matter how many tails you might gain - you only get "a" tail attack from the ability.
Magicdealer wrote: As others have said, tail terror specifies "a tail attack" and not, say, "tail attacks" or "one attack per tail".
It doesn't matter how many tails you might gain - you only get "a" tail attack from the ability.
Yes, you can make a tail slap attack with your tail. As long as a tail is your tail, you get a single tail slap with it. This means that you get a tail slap with any tail you have as long as it is your tail.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
willuwontu wrote: Magicdealer wrote: As others have said, tail terror specifies "a tail attack" and not, say, "tail attacks" or "one attack per tail".
It doesn't matter how many tails you might gain - you only get "a" tail attack from the ability.
Yes, you only gain a single tail attack, with your tail, for each tail that is your tail. "for each"
Funny, I don't see those words in the feat description. : /
blahpers wrote: willuwontu wrote: Magicdealer wrote: As others have said, tail terror specifies "a tail attack" and not, say, "tail attacks" or "one attack per tail".
It doesn't matter how many tails you might gain - you only get "a" tail attack from the ability.
Yes, you only gain a single tail attack, with your tail, for each tail that is your tail. "for each"
Funny, I don't see those words in the feat description. : / Oh woops, you're correct I mispoke there.
You can make a tail slap attack with your tail. As long as a tail is your tail, you can get a single tail slap with it. This means that you get a tail slap with any tail you have as long as it is your tail.
So from what we're saying there's 3 interpretations here in this thread:
#1.) Hard no. The feat says A tail slap. (I would say this to be the official, and likely to be accepted in most organized play).
#2.) Flat Yes. The feat gives a tail slap, but doesn't say anything about applying it to only one tail. Omission of information allows this to be valid. (This is stretching the acceptability of the feats intention and is a direct abuse of rule omission).
#3.) Yes, kinda, but no. As above, it was not intended for this purpose, but thematically it makes sense. If you know how to use at least one of your tails as a weapon, why is it you 'forget' how to for any of the others? Overall this is incredibly abusive of the rules system and you should avoid the idea. (This is a more logical approach that sees both sides of this argument).
As with anything regarding lapses in wording and logical sense, I'd leave a ruling like this up to the DM at the table, and calculate if this train of thought forces the player using it into a higher tier of statistical stupidity.
I have personally talked about this feat train with one of my DMs, who stated that with the sheer amount of feat investment you put into this for a couple of sub-par tail attacks, it would likely be accepted, as most bow builds would be outshining this almost 100% of the time.
As a side note:
Jesus, is there going any more helpful posts on this, with new sources to back anything up? Or is this just going to be a pissing match of someone saying no and willuwontu acting like a broken record and posting the same thing 100 times over?
willuwontu wrote: Meirril wrote: willuwontu wrote: Temperans wrote: I would agree with getting multiple slaps; however, in the original context it applied to a single tail so phrasing it as, "you get 1 tail slap with 1 tail" would be weird; it would also be weird to say, "you get 1 attack with each of your tails", if they only get one. Serpentfolk have a feat with similar language (they also have 1 tail).
Its also important to note it says "your tail" not "your tails".
Correct, the feats assume one tail, similar to how you're assumed to only have 2 hands as a PC. Similarly, Kasatha function differently from the norm with effects that refer to hands. Likewise, a kitsune with multiple tails functions differently from the norm with effects that refer to tails. Lets use Kasatha as an example. Kasatha get reduced penalties with 1 extra attack from Two Weapon Fighting because TWF works with 2 hands. If a Kasatha wants to use all of his arms he needs multiweapon fighting because that supports using 3 or more arms for off hand attacks.
Tail Terror is templated for 1 tail attack, just like TWF is templated for 2 hands. A new feat would need to be made that says 'you can make a tail slap attack with each tail" or something similar to enable more than 1 tail slap. You do realize having extra arms already gives you more attacks automatically (see marilith)? That's why multiweapon fighting only reduces the penalties for fighting with multiple arms and doesn't allow you to make more attacks with off hands (just like how two-weapon fighting feat doesn't give you an extra attack, just reduced penalties).
Similarly, tail terror allows you to make a tail slap with your tail, as long as it is your tail. Therefore,... You are completely missing the analogy. TWF has similar templating to Tail Terror. As in it gives a specified benefit (A tail slap). If Tail Terror was ment to affect all tails of the subject, it would be templated similarly to multiweapon fighting.
Considering Willuwontu brought up Kasatha as an analogy he should accept that feats that apply to multiple tails should be similar to feats that apply to multiple arms.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
willuwontu wrote: Incidental wrote: As such, PF and 3.x are identical in this case: if you are given 1 natural attack from a source, you have 1 natural attack from that source. The number of limbs you have do not increase the number of natural attacks you have though, in PF, they can increase the number of natural attacks you are allowed to utilize. And this would be true if the feat said "You gain a tail slap natural attack that deals ...". No. No it wouldn’t. What you just said is gibberish. I mean that sincerely, not as an ad hominem, but as criticism. Literally not that language or the present language would have any effect on the number of natural attacks granted.
You’re committing a non sequitur. The conclusion you reached has nothing to do with the premise you claimed.
I literally explained the state of the game from 3.x to PF on this issue. You didn’t engage any of it. You just contradicted and . . . what? Hoped that conviction would be convincing than how the vast majority of people have been playing over three editions?
willuwontu wrote: Similarly, if you gained the ability as a kasatha to hold a two-handed weapon in one hand (from titan mauler), you wouldn't be limited to only holding two-handed weapons in 2 of your hands. Instead you'd be able to hold two-handed weapons in all 4. That isn’t similar at all. You didn’t gain a natural attack in that example. You didn’t gain any extra attacks. It doesn’t compare in the slightest. You can already attack with any tail you like. You gain one natural attack with such a tail.
(And btw, when multiple natural attacks are granted on a per-limb basis, Paizo has called this out: the Mutant Creature and Mutant Goblin templates have semi-unique language that specify that you get a claw attack for each forelimb. That is extremely unusual. (Also, apropos of nothing: those templates look surprisingly strong.) If granting a natural attack per limb were standard, why would PF call out the pattern here and literally on no other game asset, or at least on game assets designers expect players to take?)
Let’s make this very simple. If you’re actually acting in good faith, simply address just one point I brought up before:
An alchemist with three arms gains an ability that grants her two claw attacks. How many claw attacks does the alchemist have?
Not how many should it have, not how many you’d like it to have — just how many does the alchemist have?
(And yes, it seems like a ridiculous question; the premise is ridiculous, so analysis will also be silly.)
Reksew_Trebla wrote: So do you have one or two tail slaps? It says you have "strengthened your tail" (singular) to make attacks with it, not "strengthened all your tails" (plural). If you have more tails and you want more tail slaps...
then TAKE THE FEAT MULTIPLE TIMES. Simple.
(Any DM that allows this at all has already lost control of their game, but you know you can also just check with your DM since they're the final arbiter of how the rules are interpreted in your game world)
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
willuwontu wrote:
Yes, you can make a tail slap attack with your tail. As long as a tail is your tail, you get a single tail slap with it. This means that you get a tail slap with any tail you have as long as it is your tail.
The only thing you're missing in making this work like that is any language that would make it work like that. 'A' is not 'every', 'A' is not any. Stop trying to add words. It gives you one tail attack. It would need more language than it has to be one tail attack per tail. Like, you know, 'per tail'.
Alphavoltario wrote: As a side note:
Jesus, is there going any more helpful posts on this, with new sources to back anything up? Or is this just going to be a pissing match of someone saying no and willuwontu acting like a broken record and posting the same thing 100 times over?
You must be new here....Thats basically how every rules thread ends up if it goes long enough.
POPCORN GET IT BEFORE THE OWLBEARS DO!!
Incidental wrote: An alchemist with three arms gains an ability that grants her two claw attacks. How many claw attacks does the alchemist have? Two claw attacks (unless they already had some), because the ability specified it gave them two claw attacks.
Let's say we had the following feat
Quote: Vestigial Claws
Prerequisites: Base Attack Bonus +1, Kobold
You can make a claw attack with your hand as long as it is unoccupied. This is a secondary natural attack that deals 1d4 points of slashing damage.
If I have this feat and have both hands unoccupied how many claw attacks do I get?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
willuwontu wrote:
Let's say we had the following feat
Quote: Vestigial Claws
Prerequisites: Base Attack Bonus +1, Kobold
You can make a claw attack with your hand as long as it is unoccupied. This is a secondary natural attack that deals 1d4 points of slashing damage.
If I have this feat and have both hands unoccupied how many claw attacks do I get?
1 because it says a (1) claw attack with your hand (not hands).
P.S. This theoretical feat looks worse than a racial trait, given how races with those traits get 2 primary claw attacks or 1 primary bite attack.
Okay, this is pretty clear. You can make 2, and here is why:
You can make a tail slap with your tail.
You start with tail 1. You check to see if this feat works with it. It does. You can make a tail slap with it.
You move to tail 2. You check to see if this feat works with it. It does, because it is your tail. This means you can make a tail slap with it.
“BUT ‘A’ IS SINGULAR!” I hear you cry out. Well of course it is. It means any tail used with this feat can only make a single tail slap. No where in the feat does it say it only applies to one tail if you have more than one.
“BUT!” But nothing. By trying to say only 1 tail slap at all, you are literally arguing that that second tail isn’t a tail, which is clearly wrong.
Temperans wrote: willuwontu wrote:
Let's say we had the following feat
Quote: Vestigial Claws
Prerequisites: Base Attack Bonus +1, Kobold
You can make a claw attack with your hand as long as it is unoccupied. This is a secondary natural attack that deals 1d4 points of slashing damage.
If I have this feat and have both hands unoccupied how many claw attacks do I get?
1 because it says a (1) claw attack with your hand (not hands).
P.S. This theoretical feat looks worse than a racial trait, given how races with those traits get 2 primary claw attacks or 1 primary bite attack. Similar question as before then
Quote: Heavy Hands
Prerequisites: Base Attack Bonus +5, Giant Subtype
You may choose to wield a two-handed melee weapon in one hand with a –2 penalty on attack rolls while doing so.
How many 2H weapons can I wield this way using this feat?
My two cents, I'm on the fence.
I side with the only 1 tail attack though for a few reasons. 1, number of limbs doesn't equate to number of attacks. Look at the Cecaelia, who gain only 2 tentacle attacks despite having eight of them. (Arguably these are also their legs, so they need some to stand.)
Number 2 is kind of logic. A Kitsune can't really attack with 2-9 taiks separately. They aren't Miles Prower where the tails somehow function on a pivot and let them fly like a helicopter. They also aren't the Teifling or *monkey anthro race I can't remember the name of* where the tails are prehensile enough to weild items, use Sleight of Hand, etc. I imagine a multi-tailed Kitsune to spin and just slap with the big bunch of tails as one.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Isaac Zephyr wrote: They aren't Miles Prower where the tails somehow function on a pivot and let them fly like a helicopter. Now I've got this image of a kitsune getting fly cast on it and spinning its tails around as it flies. Thanks.
willuwontu wrote:
Quote: Heavy Hands
Prerequisites: Base Attack Bonus +5, Giant Subtype
You may choose to wield a two-handed melee weapon in one hand with a –2 penalty on attack rolls while doing so.
How many 2H weapons can I wield this way using this feat?
This is just a slightly better Jotungrip (no size restriction), it does not modify the way hands work; It however, changes how 2-h weapons work for you. So you can wield two 2-h weapons.
* To function as tail terror it should say, "your hand may wield a 2-h weapon 1-handed with -2 penalty." In which case there is a question of which hand can do it, and I would say 1 hand of your choice. Same way you must choose which is the off-hand.
Temperans wrote: willuwontu wrote:
Quote: Heavy Hands
Prerequisites: Base Attack Bonus +5, Giant Subtype
You may choose to wield a two-handed melee weapon in one hand with a –2 penalty on attack rolls while doing so.
How many 2H weapons can I wield this way using this feat?
This is just a slightly better Jotungrip (no size restriction), it does not modify the way hands work; It however, changes how 2-h weapons work for you. So you can wield two 2-h weapons.
* To function as tail terror it should say, "your hand may wield a 2-h weapon 1-handed with -2 penalty." In which case there is a question of which hand can do it, and I would say 1 hand of your choice. Same way you must choose which is the off-hand. You can't wield 2 of them though, because it says a two-handed weapon in one hand. That's singular, so it only one hand can wield one 2H weapon.
Okay I see that.
Question, are we arguing that anything with 'a' is plural or that it depends on context at this point? Because, unless I failed to show that it depends on context (in which case im sorry for miscommunicating), I don't see how we can continue.
* Just to iterate, a feat/ability involving limbs, weapons, weapon handness, # of attacks, etc. is highly dependent on context of what the ability modifies, at what time, and how.
Ex: "When you hit with a melee attack" is plural, unless stated otherwise; but "Make a melee attack" is singular, again unless stated other otherwise.
Rules and english are both weird things full of contradictions.
We're reiterating that "a" has no effect of the benefits of tail terror.
On a side note, the rules tend to contain assumptions, such as "your tail" assuming you only have one tail, or using "both hands" when you have more than two hands.
Consider the phrase, "you can hold an object in your hand", does this mean you can only hold one object, or one object per hand?
Clearly (to me) it means you have the option of holding an object (the subject of the singular) in each of your hands. However, your arguments throughout the thread would say that you can only hold one object, because singular phrasing.
Instead, the way it's worded (for me) intends that it gives you an option of something you can do with a hand that is your hand, not something that you can do with only one hand.
Okay then I was right that it was a failure in my part to communicate then, Im sorry. And yes, the phrase you said would be that you can hold 1 object per hand. But, the fact 'a' as a plural is more of an exception, and plainly ambiguous even then, is why I think its all a matter of context (or would it be RAI :thinking:).
P.S. English is so dumb sometimes.
Yes it is. I also note that the "a" in the feat refers to the singular tail slap you can make with your tail. The part I debate is whether it makes it an option for each tail that is your tail.
I also think that in the context of the build it's fine, given the sheer amount of feats you need to sink into the build for it to be relevant.
Part of the problem with the feat combination is the interaction between Kitsune and Kobolt feats which normally can't be applied to the same creature. As such, the designers for both feats never considered the possibility of them interacting.
Part of the reason I suggest the more restrictive interpretation is because Pathfinder is restrictive with its natural attacks. Most flying creatures don't get wing attacks. Most tailed creatures don't get tail slaps. Most creatures that get claw attacks get 2, not 4 even if they have 4 legs. Several plant creatures get a limited number of root slaps even though the description of the monster intimates that the plant creature has a lot more major roots it isn't attacking with and if any of those roots are incapacitated other roots can take their place.
So a feat that suddenly grants a PC one additional natural attack is balanced around the idea you get one natural attack. Trying to break that balance is the same as trying to earn wealth beyond your character level. It risks breaking the game. Or does your feat math say that 1 feat should equal 1 attack + a new spell like ability? Because that is what this makes adding additional tails into.
I think an extra natural attack (even a secondary) is worth a lot more than a +1 to hit or +2 to damage. Lets not take an underpowered feat for a weak race and turn it into the monster it was never suppose to be.
Removed a post and its reply.
Please keep this thread on topic and free of comments which personally attack individuals.
Monks can attack with any body part they have...hands, feet, elbows, knees, headbutts, etc. So by willuwontu's interpretation, all unarmed monks should be getting at least 9 attacks per round starting at level 1, 10 if you flurry. 2 fists, 2 elbows, 2 feet, 2 knees, and a headbutt.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
willuwontu wrote: We're reiterating that "a" has no effect of the benefits of tail terror. Yeah, I'm out.
Slyme wrote: Monks can attack with any body part they have...hands, feet, elbows, knees, headbutts, etc. So by willuwontu's interpretation, all unarmed monks should be getting at least 9 attacks per round starting at level 1, 10 if you flurry. 2 fists, 2 elbows, 2 feet, 2 knees, and a headbutt. Look at this guy, not factoring in body slams, hip thrusts, and individual fingers into monk barrages.
Meirril wrote: Part of the problem with the feat combination is the interaction between Kitsune and Kobolt feats which normally can't be applied to the same creature. As such, the designers for both feats never considered the possibility of them interacting. What, the designers can't see into the future and forsee all relevant interactions. I'd have never guessed that.
Quote: Part of the reason I suggest the more restrictive interpretation is because Pathfinder is restrictive with its natural attacks. Most flying creatures don't get wing attacks. Most tailed creatures don't get tail slaps. Most creatures that get claw attacks get 2, not 4 even if they have 4 legs. Several plant creatures get a limited number of root slaps even though the description of the monster intimates that the plant creature has a lot more major roots it isn't attacking with and if any of those roots are incapacitated other roots can take their place. Yet most people would trade natural attacks for natural flight. It's almost like one is way better than the other. There's also feats for that iirc.
Most tailed creatures have some other form of attack as well, even the quadrupeds that only get 2 claws (not 4) tend to get other natural attacks or rider effects as well, like rake or grab or pounce. The PC races who don't tend to have feats available for them as well.
It's almost like plant creatures tend to get immunities, special attacks, and SLAs as well. Having to roll for the 50th attack from the willow tree would get quite annoying to players, quite fast.
Quote: So a feat that suddenly grants a PC one additional natural attack is balanced around the idea you get one natural attack. Trying to break that balance is the same as trying to earn wealth beyond your character level. It risks breaking the game. Or does your feat math say that 1 feat should equal 1 attack + a new spell like ability? Because that is what this makes adding additional tails into. You mean, are 3(+) feats worth 1(+) natural attacks and (+) low level SLAs?
They are actually worth roughly that. SLAs and natural attacks tend to be partially worth a feat. Natural attacks (with rider effects) themselves are also only worth 18k (9k crafted) gold. Spells from items vary in cost.
In addition, you're giving up (or heavily delaying) any other feats that you might want.
Quote: I think an extra natural attack (even a secondary) is worth a lot more than a +1 to hit or +2 to damage. Lets not take an underpowered feat for a weak race and turn it into the monster it was never suppose to be. Is it good? Yes. Is it a monster? Definitely not.
Slyme wrote: Monks can attack with any body part they have...hands, feet, elbows, knees, headbutts, etc. So by willuwontu's interpretation, all unarmed monks should be getting at least 9 attacks per round starting at level 1, 10 if you flurry. 2 fists, 2 elbows, 2 feet, 2 knees, and a headbutt. Good to know they don't all fall under unarmed strike and are considered separate attacks. Also good to know that they're all considered natural attack. Are they primary or secondary?
Weapon focus elbow sounds like a great feat to pick up.
Tarik Blackhands wrote: Slyme wrote: Monks can attack with any body part they have...hands, feet, elbows, knees, headbutts, etc. So by willuwontu's interpretation, all unarmed monks should be getting at least 9 attacks per round starting at level 1, 10 if you flurry. 2 fists, 2 elbows, 2 feet, 2 knees, and a headbutt. Look at this guy, not factoring in body slams, hip thrusts, and individual fingers into monk barrages. Those attacks are only legal when grappling a succubus though.
|
