thaX wrote: Look at the weapon designations again. Only Light and One Handed weapons have Off Hand mentions, Two Handed weapons do not.
If a GM allows for the use of a Two Handed weapon in the off hand, he would likely impose a further -2 penalty to TWF for doing so. (-10/-14 in the example above or -6/-6 (-8/-8 with Juntongrip) with TWF feat)
It is a bad example for the subject at hand, as one does not get multiple attacks (or extra ones) with these weapons that is beyond the normal amount that the character gets with a single weapon.
Jotungrip specifically states that the two handed weapon is treated as a one handed weapon for purposes like str to dmg and feats like power attack. So, it tells us that we need to treat it like a one handed weapon in order to determine, how many can be wielded in a hand and what the bonuses/penalties are for doing so.
You are correct that you could not wield a two-handed weapon in your offhand without Jotungrip.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
But as a Light weapon is still a Light weapon when used with TWF (thus getting the lessened penalty when used as such), a Two Handed weapon is still a Two Handed weapon when the character is treating and wielding it as the One Handed weapon. Power Attack and Str bonus depends on how the character wields the weapon, not on what the weapon is.
This is the same as the character wielding a One Handed weapon with both hands (Two Handed). It is still a one handed weapon, but gets the higher Str bonus and the 1.5 Str mod bonus from two handing the weapon.
LordKailas wrote: I feel like people are looking at their own corner and shouting their own logic while simultaneously covering their ears so they don't hear anyone else standing in a different corner similarly shouting their own logic and covering their ears.
so, I'm going to try to revert to basics and see if I can distill the logic from both sides.
Tail Terror wrote: You can make a tail slap attack with your tail. This is a secondary natural attack that deals 1d4 points of bludgeoning damage. Now, both sides are looking at this exact phrasing and are coming to two different conclusions. In order to bring about clarity it makes sense to look at feats with similar wording to see if the same conclusion can be drawn. If a different conclusion applies to a feat with the same wording then that original conclusion must be wrong.
To start with lets look at some other feats that grant natural attacks.
Deadly Horns wrote: You gain a gore natural attack that deals 1d6 points of damage. Due to the awkwardness of attacking this way, you can’t make a gore attack and other natural weapon attacks as part of the same full attack. Lashing Tail wrote: You gain a tail slap natural attack that deals damage as appropriate for your size (1d6 points for a Medium creature, or 1d4 points for a small creature). When you first gain this feat, choose bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing; this is the type of damage your tail inflicts, and it cannot be later changed. Due to the inherent awkwardness of attacking with your tail, you can’t make a tail slap attack and other natural weapon attacks as part of the same full attack. Tail Weapon wrote: You can make a tail slap attack with your tail. This is a secondary natural attack that deals 1d6 points of bludgeoning damage. Tail weapon and Tail terror have nearly identical wording. They also have basically the same requirements except when it comes to race. This tells us a few things.
1. Since they come from different books written 2 years...
The feats that enable a character to perform more natural attacks indicate how many natural attacks you gain. From what I've seen all of them specify 1 or 2 attacks gained, and the 2 is from using both hands which generally means you can't combine them with weapon attacks.
The feats that modify attacks you already have apply to all of those attacks because it is a case of modifying the rules that govern those attacks. The templating is the same regardless if they are armed, unarmed, or natural attacks because all of them are rules modifying feats.
Incidental wrote: willuwontu wrote: Incidental wrote: willuwontu wrote: 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. Welp, that’s wrong. If they already had a single claw attack, they’d still get the other two granted by the ability.
It's like I mentioned that's a possible case or something. It’s like. . . you didn’t. At all. At this point, I think you may be just trolling. Quote: Unless
conjunction
except if (used to introduce a case in which a statement being made is not true or valid)
This means
Quote: Two claw attacks (unless they already had some), because the ability specified it gave them two claw attacks. actually says
Quote: Two claw attacks (except if they already had some), because the ability specified it gave them two claw attacks. Which means my answer was they have two claw attack if they don't already have natural attacks, and is not an answer for any case that they already do. Similarly, if I have a 3x3 matrix, we're only guaranteed to have 3 independent Eigen vectors if we have 3 distinct Eigen values (unless the matrix is orthonormal diagonalizable), otherwise we know nothing aside from the number of guaranteed Eigen vectors in that situation (at least I know nothing with my current level of LA).
I'm also fairly certain you're the one trolling. You asked a question, and then when that question was answered, you spring in with details that weren't in the initial question, that are relevant to the answer. Just so you can go "Welp, that’s wrong. Here's some details that you couldn't have known, and that if you were given them, they have allowed you to get the correct answer, so I didn't include them in the initial post."
Quote: You ignored the other points. You also ignored them again. You mean I responded to only a single point in a post that said respond to only this single point?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!??!
I know, that's really shocking, that if you ask someone to answer exactly one point, they might answer only that one.
Quote: I made a BROADER claim Because as we all know, general overrides specific.
Quote: Further, once again, the fact that this never applied to 3.x is ignored. Oh look, 3.x overrides PF, let me go tell my druid players they can use the ability scores of the animals they change into instead of the modifiers that PF uses, because apparently 3.x is the only thing that matters in PF.
I was also unaware that 3.x had this exact feat, or that this exact combo was possible in it.
Quote: Show me one example of the the wording changes causing someone besides yourself since PF existed coming to your ridiculous conclusion until now. Reksew_Trebla wrote: 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.
Quote: Pot meet kettle. Because "I don't know" and "I'm not going to answer those questions" totally mean the same thing.
Quote: Explain why Mutant Creature and Goblin specifically call out your wrongness or pack it up. Aside from them not doing so?
Darkblitz9 wrote: The example with Willuwontu loves to throw around about Titan Mauler uses Manufactured Weapons, which function differently than natural weapons.
For manufactored weapons, you can wield as many and attack with as many as you have capable limbs for, taking appropriate penalties.
For natural weapons, you get as many as are denoted, and the number denoted is always present. "A" is singular. "Tail" is singular. If you wanted to get multiple attacks from a single feat, plural terms are used (Any, All, Each, Two, Three, Tails, Hands, Claws, Heads, Hooves, Feet).
Quote: At 2nd level, a titan mauler may choose to wield a two-handed melee weapon in one hand with a –2 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. The weapon must be appropriately sized for her, and it is treated as one-handed when determining the effect of Power Attack, Strength bonus to damage, and the like. So I guess the singular "A" there means a titan mauler can only treat a single two-handed weapon as being one-handed. Good to know. /s
On a non-sarcastic note, it's merely grants you an combat option for usage, that you can use with any two-handed weapon. Similarly, the way tail terror is worded, it grants you a combat option for any tail that is your tail.
Quote: To drive this forward further: Monk's Improved Unarmed Strike allows you to use any part of your body as a weapon. This does not mean you can attack dozens of times by using every surface of your body to strike with. Nor was that ever an argument. But for reference we can look at the ability.
Quote: A monk’s attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full. Their attacks are considered unarmed strikes. Unarmed strikes use the same rules for attacking as manufactured weapons (with some exceptions), unlike natural attacks which grant you attacks for each one you have on a full attack. This is not and has never been a relevant position of my argument, instead it is a straw man you set up.
Ironically:
Quote: For manufactored weapons, you can wield as many and attack with as many as you have capable limbs for, taking appropriate penalties. You say this in your post, making yourself seem more like a proponent of such a position. (I note that you do this unintentionally in all likelihood, but felt it was amusing enough to bring up). It's also false, as only off-hands grant you extra attacks. Wearing boot-knifes, kobold tail weapon attachments, etc does not grant extra attacks, just more choices from which to use to make them with.
Quote: Just having a limb does not grant an attack I almost didn't reply to this but felt the need to correct it. They almost never grant an attack, except if the limb is an off-hand, in which case they do when wielding a manufactured weapon (Unless they specify that they don't, see alchemist extra arms).
Meirril wrote: The feats that enable a character to perform more natural attacks indicate how many natural attacks you gain. From what I've seen all of them specify 1 or 2 attacks gained, and the 2 is from using both hands which generally means you can't combine them with weapon attacks.
The feats that modify attacks you already have apply to all of those attacks because it is a case of modifying the rules that govern those attacks. The templating is the same regardless if they are armed, unarmed, or natural attacks because all of them are rules modifying feats.
Not gonna give a real reply for now, because I really need to hit the hay, but as a loose reply, the issue with the feat is the generalization of the language for it. As lordkailas points out in his post, no one argues that it only allows one tail slap with your tail, it's what the "your tail" applies to.
My argument is it applies to every tail that is your tail, similar to how titan mauler jotungrip applies to all 2H weapons.
Your position (by what I think it is and can tell from your posts) is that the singular carries over, and thus you only gain one attack.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
WillUwontU,
Yes, the feat applies with all "tails" that the character may have, but you only have one butt. Similar to the monk using all parts of his body to effect the Flurry of attacks he gets, the Tail Slap (Butt Bump?) is an attack no matter how many tails you actually have.
Having two (2) Two Handed weapons wielded will not give you the extra attack afforded by TWF. (As I have pointed out in the post above)
I don't believe having multiple tails would afford a character extra attacks with the Tail Slap.
willuwontu wrote: Meirril wrote: The feats that enable a character to perform more natural attacks indicate how many natural attacks you gain. From what I've seen all of them specify 1 or 2 attacks gained, and the 2 is from using both hands which generally means you can't combine them with weapon attacks.
The feats that modify attacks you already have apply to all of those attacks because it is a case of modifying the rules that govern those attacks. The templating is the same regardless if they are armed, unarmed, or natural attacks because all of them are rules modifying feats.
Not gonna give a real reply for now, because I really need to hit the hay, but as a loose reply, the issue with the feat is the generalization of the language for it. As lordkailas points out in his post, no one argues that it only allows one tail slap with your tail, it's what the "your tail" applies to.
My argument is it applies to every tail that is your tail, similar to how titan mauler jotungrip applies to all 2H weapons.
Your position (by what I think it is and can tell from your posts) is that the singular carries over, and thus you only gain one attack. More that you want to say that Tail Terror and other feats that give a natural attack let you use every limb described in the feat, treating it like a feat that modifies a portion of the rules.
Other people have pointed out that monks have similar wording used to describe their unarmed attacks and they don't get more unarmed attacks than specified and technically they can name every body part as being able to deliver an unarmed attack, so why can't they perform an unarmed attack for each one? Or more if they suddenly are given more body parts?
While my position is that feats that enable you to make more attacks are treated differently than feats that modify rules and they specify how many attacks you gain. You don't sit there and say "I've got an ability that lets me grow 2 claws, but I've got more arms so I should get more claws" The wording of tail terror is consistent with a single attack being added, and other similar feats give 1 or 2 natural attacks. None of the feats that add natural attacks add more than 2 so why would this feat apply to 'every' tail?
thaX wrote: But as a Light weapon is still a Light weapon when used with TWF (thus getting the lessened penalty when used as such), a Two Handed weapon is still a Two Handed weapon when the character is treating and wielding it as the One Handed weapon. Power Attack and Str bonus depends on how the character wields the weapon, not on what the weapon is.
This is the same as the character wielding a One Handed weapon with both hands (Two Handed). It is still a one handed weapon, but gets the higher Str bonus and the 1.5 Str mod bonus from two handing the weapon.
Two weapon fighting checks what kind of weapons you are "wielding". It doesn't matter what a weapon "actually" is because jotungrip states that you can "wield" a 2handed weapon in one hand and at that point it is treated as a one handed weapon, even to the point of losing the benefits of being a 2handed weapon for feats like power attack.
thaX wrote: WillUwontU,
Yes, the feat applies with all "tails" that the character may have, but you only have one butt. Similar to the monk using all parts of his body to effect the Flurry of attacks he gets, the Tail Slap (Butt Bump?) is an attack no matter how many tails you actually have.
Meirril wrote: Other people have pointed out that monks have similar wording used to describe their unarmed attacks and they don't get more unarmed attacks than specified and technically they can name every body part as being able to deliver an unarmed attack, so why can't they perform an unarmed attack for each one? Or more if they suddenly are given more body parts? The key difference is that unarmed strikes are treated as manufactured weapons for the purposes of determining the number of attacks you get with them, and thus get limited by things like BAB. Unlike natural attacks, where having more of them means you do get more attacks.
Also having the ability to make them from from different places also doesn't change that they are still the same attack. Similarly, having multiple fingers on a clawed hand doesn't give you more claw natural attacks, it's still 1 claw attack.
If the ability, was worded like dangerous tail or lashing tail and just said "you gain a tail slap attack." Or "you gain 2 claw attacks." With no other qualifiers afterwards, it would be far more clear cut and would resemble your situation.
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're the hero this thread needs but doesn't deserve.
Though in will's favor is Paizo's history of oversight (please don't ban me). To quote an old video: "How can she slap?"
It occurs to me today that there is a more basic argument that works against our Kitsune/human/kobolt that was never brought up. Doesn't the Kitsune lack the appropriate body part?
Lets look at tails here. Several other races have feats with tails. Serpantfolk get tail weapon which is quite a bit better than Tail Terror. But it should be since the kobolt is small sized and the serpant folk have a considerably larger tail.
Considerably larger tail. Kitsune are medium sized. But they have no feats that allow their tails to attack or do anything. Just a feat that adds more tails along with spell like abilities.
Tieflings have large tails. They get grasping tail as a feat which lets them use the tail to manipulate objects but not for combat. A tail that is quite a bit more useful and substantial than a Kitsune tail.
Vanara get tree hanger which is useful in combat, but not like an attack.
Humans can't use the tail feats because they lack the appropriate appendage. Is a kitsune tail appropriate to use for a tail slap? I think the answer is no, for the kobolt feat you need a tail that is at least as substantial as a kobolts. I think a tiefling would have a much better argument that their tail is substantial enough to use another races feat if they could access it.
Meirril wrote: Considerably larger tail. Kitsune are medium sized. But they have no feats that allow their tails to attack or do anything. Just a feat that adds more tails along with spell like abilities.
Tieflings have large tails. They get grasping tail as a feat which lets them use the tail to manipulate objects but not for combat. A tail that is quite a bit more useful and substantial than a Kitsune tail.
As of Planar Adventures, Grasping Tail is a feat available to any race with a tail, not just Tieflings as it was in the ARG. It also has a feat tree including Lashing Tail which gives a 1d6 tail attack, however "due to the awkwardness it cannot be used as a full attack with other natural attacks". This would include additional tails.
Lizardfolk also have a tail sweep feat in Monster Codex, which lacks this extra language (though lacks language calling it a natural attack explicitly, despite describing it as a secondary natural attack in everything but name, and in the same book having a Serpentfolk feat granting a tail secondary natural attack).
It seems to be reptilian humanoids have tails that can be used with other attacks, but no one else does. This is why despite the damage dice being size-appropriate on Lashing Tail, and the chain requiring less feats, this particular attempted exploit requires Tail Terror. The only tail attack available to a humanoid, that isn't limited in full attack potential.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
LordKailas wrote: thaX wrote: But as a Light weapon is still a Light weapon when used with TWF (thus getting the lessened penalty when used as such), a Two Handed weapon is still a Two Handed weapon when the character is treating and wielding it as the One Handed weapon. Power Attack and Str bonus depends on how the character wields the weapon, not on what the weapon is.
This is the same as the character wielding a One Handed weapon with both hands (Two Handed). It is still a one handed weapon, but gets the higher Str bonus and the 1.5 Str mod bonus from two handing the weapon.
Two weapon fighting checks what kind of weapons you are "wielding". It doesn't matter what a weapon "actually" is because jotungrip states that you can "wield" a 2handed weapon in one hand and at that point it is treated as a one handed weapon, even to the point of losing the benefits of being a 2handed weapon for feats like power attack.
Did you just do that? TWF checks for what designation of the weapon you are wielding, but doesn't check for it because your wielding it? How does that work? If it doesn't matter if your wielding a Two Handed weapon in One Hand, Then how does TWF check for a Light Weapon in the same way to reduce the penalties? You can't have it both ways.
It is a bad example for the question at hand, and has no barring on if one can get multiple attacks with one feat and many tails.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
willuwontu wrote: thaX wrote: WillUwontU,
Yes, the feat applies with all "tails" that the character may have, but you only have one butt. Similar to the monk using all parts of his body to effect the Flurry of attacks he gets, the Tail Slap (Butt Bump?) is an attack no matter how many tails you actually have.
Meirril wrote: Other people have pointed out that monks have similar wording used to describe their unarmed attacks and they don't get more unarmed attacks than specified and technically they can name every body part as being able to deliver an unarmed attack, so why can't they perform an unarmed attack for each one? Or more if they suddenly are given more body parts? The key difference is that unarmed strikes are treated as manufactured weapons for the purposes of determining the number of attacks you get with them, and thus get limited by things like BAB. Unlike natural attacks, where having more of them means you do get more attacks.
Also having the ability to make them from from different places also doesn't change that they are still the same attack. Similarly, having multiple fingers on a clawed hand doesn't give you more claw natural attacks, it's still 1 claw attack.
If the ability, was worded like dangerous tail or lashing tail and just said "you gain a tail slap attack." Or "you gain 2 claw attacks." With no other qualifiers afterwards, it would be far more clear cut and would resemble your situation. Clarifying, a Monk's unarmed attack counts both as a natural and manufactured weapon. (a Light one) You are limited by Flurry, which is different than TWF and is separate from Natural attacks. The example is that the Monk's Flurry (with Monk weapon or fists) only gets the attacks he has at that level, and funny feats like this is not going to add any attacks to that amount.
willuwontu wrote:
So I guess the singular "A" there means a titan mauler can only treat a single two-handed weapon as being one-handed. Good to know. /s I already addressed this. Manufactured weapons are treated entirely differently than natural attacks. You can wield as many maufactured weapons as you have capable limbs for. This isn't the case with natural attacks. First, you need a limb capable of dealing an attack (Teeth for Bite, arms/hands for Claws, tails for tail slaps, etc) and the number of attacks gained is specifically denoted. If it isn't, only one is granted unless the wording strictly and obviously implies otherwise. Basically: If you have to ask if a feat gives you more than one Natural attack, or more than what is listed, the answer is "No."
willuwontu wrote:
On a non-sarcastic note, it's merely grants you an combat option for usage, that you can use with any two-handed weapon. Similarly, the way tail terror is worded, it grants you a combat option for any tail that is your tail.
No, it grants you a natural attack, using the tail to deliver it. It's not granting an option. Feats and abilities that grant natural attacks are not granting options for limbs, they are granting attacks themselves. It's important to understand that because the natural attack system is far more restrictive than attacks with manufactures weapons, and for good reason.
willuwontu wrote: Nor was that ever an argument. But for reference we can look at the ability.
Quote: A monk’s attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full. Their attacks are considered unarmed strikes. Unarmed strikes use the same rules for attacking as manufactured weapons (with some exceptions), unlike natural attacks which grant you attacks for each one you have on a full attack. This is not and has never been a relevant...
It's entirely relevant. It lists multiple limbs with which you can make the attacks, by your logic, since you can make the attacks with *any* limb, that means you can make attacks with *all* limbs. That isn't the case. You don't see monks going "All right I'm going to unarmed strike with fist, fist, elbow, elbow, knee, knee, foot, foot".
willuwontu wrote: The key difference is that unarmed strikes are treated as manufactured weapons for the purposes of determining the number of attacks you get with them, and thus get limited by things like BAB. Unlike natural attacks, where having more of them means you do get more attacks. That's not the case.
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. Specifically, they're only treated as manufactured for the sake of enhancements/improvements.
Pathfinder is severely limiting with how many attacks are doled out. Look at Eidolons, you need a separate evolution for arms to get another pair of claw attacks. If we used your logic for Tail terror, anytime you get the Arms evolution after getting the Claws evolution, it would grant two additional claw attacks automatically. That isn't the case.
Multiple limbs do not and never have automatically granted more natural attacks. Abilities which grant natural attacks do so in a way that explicitly denote how many are gained.
GeorgeTheFool wrote: 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're the hero this thread needs but doesn't deserve.
Though in will's favor is Paizo's history of oversight (please don't ban me). To quote an old video: "How can she slap?" No Paizo's history of oversight isn't in his favor. While this interaction probably didn't even come to the mind of the editor or the writer it's unlikely that it would stand as a ruling to allow 9 tail attacks in the long run. That's the history we would be looking at.
Slyme wrote: It says you can make A (as in singular) tail slap with your tail. Not a slap with each of your tails. +1
Slyme wrote: You cannot make a Kitsune with 9 tails that gets 9 tail slap attacks. I guess you could if you also took Tail Terror 9 times...
Darkblitz9 wrote: First, you need a limb capable of dealing an attack Oh look I have tails.
Quote: and the number of attacks gained is specifically denoted. Oh, it specifically says "you gain one tail slap" then?
I guess I missed that part of the feat.
Quote: If it isn't, only one is granted unless the wording strictly and obviously implies otherwise. Source?
Quote: No, it grants you a natural attack, using the tail to deliver it. It's not granting an option. Feats and abilities that grant natural attacks are not granting options for limbs, they are granting attacks themselves. It's important to understand that because the natural attack system is far more restrictive than attacks with manufactures weapons, and for good reason. It is quite literally granting you an option.
Quote: It's entirely relevant. It lists multiple limbs with which you can make the attacks, by your logic, since you can make the attacks with *any* limb, that means you can make attacks with *all* limbs. That isn't the case. You don't see monks going "All right I'm going to unarmed strike with fist, fist, elbow, elbow, knee, knee, foot, foot". No, it's entirely irrelevant. All of those are an unarmed strike. Which is not a natural attack, thus having more ways of making one does not grant more attacks. Whereas having more natural attacks does grant more attack.
Quote: willuwontu wrote: The key difference is that unarmed strikes are treated as manufactured weapons for the purposes of determining the number of attacks you get with them, and thus get limited by things like BAB. Unlike natural attacks, where having more of them means you do get more attacks. That's not the case.
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. Specifically, they're only treated as manufactured for the sake of enhancements/improvements.
Fair enough point. Just like manufactured weapons though, they're also specifically only treated as natural attacks for the sake of enhancements/improvements. So they are not natural attacks, and do not gain benefits from having more ways to make them.
Thus, it's still irrelevant.
Quote: If we used your logic for Tail terror, anytime you get the Arms evolution after getting the Claws evolution, it would grant two additional claw attacks automatically. That isn't the case. So it says "You grow 2 arms and can make a claw attack with your arm"?
Or does claw evolution say "You can make a claw attack with your arm"?
No, they do not. Thus my logic would say each claw evolution would only grant you two claw attacks since it says it gives the eidolon "two claw attacks", not "two claw attacks with your arm".
Quote: Multiple limbs do not and never have automatically granted more natural attacks. Correct, having more limbs does not. Having an ability that does so is what does.
Quote: Abilities which grant natural attacks do so in a way that explicitly denote how many are gained. Not always true, but this is typically true.
Could you name where this is not always true? I would like to know.
I know I've shown how this feat gives a single attack in previous posts with like... a dozen(?) Ways to clearly show it's a single attack and not one to show it isn't.
willuwontu wrote: Oh, it specifically says "you gain one tail slap" then? It's specific enough:
Tail Terror wrote: You have strengthened your tail enough to make slap attacks with it.... You can make a tail slap attack with your tail. This is a secondary natural attack that deals 1d4 "A tail" means 1 tail. A secondary natural attack means 1. It's a Kobold Feat, and Kobolds have 1 tail. I love the idea of a character build that piles on multiple natural attacks, but I don't think this is the way.
Having the part does not imply that you have the attack. Lots of creatures have tails, but most do not have a tail attack. All animals have mouths, but not all of them have a Bite Attack.
Gaining a Natural Attack is gaining an Attack Action that you can make as part of the Full Attack Action. It really looks to me like taking the Tail Terror Feat 1 time gives you 1 Attack.
Ooh, forgot: there is the Fleshwarped Whip or is it the Fleshwarped Tail. That gives you a Tail Attack.
Personally, this is not the way I would rack up multiple natural attacks.
If you played a Tengu instead of a Kitsune, you can get Claws and a Bite.
If you take a level in White Haired Witch, you get a Hair Attack.
If you take the Feral Mutagen Alchemal Discovery, you get claws and a Bite.
If you acquire a Helm of the Mammoth Lord or an Animal Mask, you can get a Gore Attack.
If you get a Tentacle Cloak, you can get 2 Tentacle Attacks.
If you take 4 levels in Druid, you get Wild Shape, and you can get lots of Attacks. I'm thinking you Wild Shape into a Giant Octopus and get a Bite and 8 Tentacle Attacks with Grab and Constrict for 17 Attacks/round!
Cavall wrote: Could you name where this is not always true? I would like to know.
I know I've shown how this feat gives a single attack in previous posts with like... a dozen(?) Ways to clearly show it's a single attack and not one to show it isn't.
A dozen ways?
More like 1 way, which is the same point that's been made all along.
The "a".
Scott Wilhelm wrote: Personally, this is not the way I would rack up multiple natural attacks.
If you played a Tengu instead of a Kitsune, you can get Claws and a Bite.
If you take a level in White Haired Witch, you get a Hair Attack.
If you take the Feral Mutagen Alchemal Discovery, you get claws and a Bite.
If you acquire a Helm of the Mammoth Lord or an Animal Mask, you can get a Gore Attack.
If you get a Tentacle Cloak, you can get 2 Tentacle Attacks.
If you take 4 levels in Druid, you get Wild Shape, and you can get lots of Attacks. I'm thinking you Wild Shape into a Giant Octopus and get a Bite and 8 Tentacle Attacks with Grab and Constrict for 17 Attacks/round!
And the druid causes you to loses all those other attacks per polymorph magic rules.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: willuwontu wrote: Oh, it specifically says "you gain one tail slap" then? It's specific enough:
Tail Terror wrote: You have strengthened your tail enough to make slap attacks with it.... You can make a tail slap attack with your tail. This is a secondary natural attack that deals 1d4 "A tail" means 1 tail. It doesn't say "you can make a tail slap with a tail."
It says "you can make a tail slap with your tail"
AKA, if it's your tail, you can make a tail slap with it.
Cavall wrote:
The wording in tail slap is clear.
You have strengthened your tail (one) enough to make slap attacks with it.(not them)
You can make a singular tail not tails slap attack one with your tail. one This not these is not are a singlular secondary natural attack not attacks that deals 1d4 points of bludgeoning damage.
It was only 10 ways. My bad.
But I did put a (?) in. It's still a lot for 3 sentences. An average of more than 3.3 ways you're wrong a sentence. That's actually impressive.
OH WAIT.
"That deals 1d4."
that
pronoun
1.
used to identify a specific person or thing observed by the speaker.
"that's his wife over there"
2.
referring to a specific thing previously mentioned, known, or understood.
"that's a good idea"
determiner
1.
used to identify a specific person or thing observed or heard by the speaker.
"look at that man there"
2.
referring to a specific thing previously mentioned, known, or understood.
"he lived in Mysore at that time"
Make that 11. Just shy. 11 ways you're wrong.
Cavall wrote: Cavall wrote:
The wording in tail slap is clear.
You have strengthened your tail (one) enough to make slap attacks with it.(not them)
You can make a singular tail not tails slap attack one with your tail. one This not these is not are a singlular secondary natural attack not attacks that deals 1d4 points of bludgeoning damage.
It was only 10 ways. My bad.
But I did put a (?) in. It's still a lot for 3 sentences. An average of more than 3.3 ways you're wrong a sentence. That's actually impressive. It's interesting that you contend that your single point about the "a" being singular is not singular but instead a plethora of reasons.
I read and reread your last post and I cant see what you're talking about other than to say that in 3 sentences you're wrong 11 times and not right once.
It is singular. One. One more time than you being right. 10 less times than me being right.
But hey a plethora of reasons you're wrong still stands. However you want to describe it.
Cavall wrote: OH WAIT.
"That deals 1d4."
that
pronoun
1.
used to identify a specific person or thing observed by the speaker.
"that's his wife over there"
2.
referring to a specific thing previously mentioned, known, or understood.
"that's a good idea"
determiner
1.
used to identify a specific person or thing observed or heard by the speaker.
"look at that man there"
2.
referring to a specific thing previously mentioned, known, or understood.
"he lived in Mysore at that time"
Make that 11. Just shy. 11 ways you're wrong.
"He had 11 points that were all the same."
Oh look, "that", must be only one point.
11 different instances that support the same argument isn't one point.
Just like 0 that support yours isn't the same as one point
Cavall wrote: 11 different instances that support the same argument isn't one point. Correct, 11 different instances are not.
11 instances of the same thing is one point.
Quote: Just like 0 that support yours isn't the same as one point You mean the 4 (actually different) instances that support mine?
I dont see anything written there not immediately disproven.
And they are 11 different instances are each part of the sentence shows time and time again the same point with a different example. 11 times.
Cavall wrote: I dont see anything written there not immediately disproven.
And they are 11 different instances are each part of the sentence shows time and time again the same point with a different example. 11 times.
They are 11 instances saying the wording of the feat is singular. Which is 1 point, not 11 points.
This is a rules forum, not an endurance forum. If you don't have a new point can you stop rehashing old points, or insisting you are correct without presenting a new argument? Regardless of whether the person you are arguing with is convinced or not, I think everybody else can come to their own conclusion.
Continuing to insist you are right just gets annoying if all you do is repeat yourself.
Meirril wrote: Continuing to insist you are right just gets annoying if all you do is repeat yourself. I stated this two pages ago, and here we are...
Also we almost had a full month of silence on this thread... why did someone bring it back up? We don't need any more 'yes/no' answers. Unless there is a statement by a Dev clearing this issue (if it even should be considered one that is anymore), or someone with actual written clarification (not bringing up the same, dis-proven moot points), stop... all of you... just stop...
willuwontu wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote: Personally, this is not the way I would rack up multiple natural attacks.
If you played a Tengu instead of a Kitsune, you can get Claws and a Bite.
If you take a level in White Haired Witch, you get a Hair Attack.
If you take the Feral Mutagen Alchemal Discovery, you get claws and a Bite.
If you acquire a Helm of the Mammoth Lord or an Animal Mask, you can get a Gore Attack.
If you get a Tentacle Cloak, you can get 2 Tentacle Attacks.
If you take 4 levels in Druid, you get Wild Shape, and you can get lots of Attacks. I'm thinking you Wild Shape into a Giant Octopus and get a Bite and 8 Tentacle Attacks with Grab and Constrict for 17 Attacks/round!
And the druid causes you to loses all those other attacks per polymorph magic rules. I'm not suggesting you do all of these things with 1 character. I'm just offering a lot of ways a character can get lots of natural attacks.
willuwontu wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote: willuwontu wrote: Oh, it specifically says "you gain one tail slap" then? It's specific enough:
Tail Terror wrote: You have strengthened your tail enough to make slap attacks with it.... You can make a tail slap attack with your tail. This is a secondary natural attack that deals 1d4 "A tail" means 1 tail. It doesn't say "you can make a tail slap with a tail."
It says "you can make a tail slap with your tail"
AKA, if it's your tail, you can make a tail slap with it. Remember that gaining a Natural Attack isn't gaining a body part: it's gaining an Attack Action. Half Orcs have mouths. They take Razortusk or Toothy to get a Bite Attack Action. Tail Terror only offers 1 Tail Attack.
Here's a counter argument for you to use. If you took Feral Combat Training for your Claws, and if you had 2 Claws, most people would not suppose that you are taking FCT for 1 Claw but not the other. If you took FCT for your Tentacles, most people would presume you were taking FCT for all of them. You have Claws, you take FCT for your Claws, both of them, or all of them incase you cast Beast Shape I and turn into an Auvorimorax that has 4 Claws. If you have multiple tails, of course you would take Tail Terror for all of them. If you had multiple tail attacks, and you took FCT, of course it would apply to all your Tail Attacks.
My problem with this here, though is that this feat is one that grants an action, and it only provides for 1 action, "a tail slap." Also, again, since it's a Kobold Feat, and Kobolds only have 1 tail, this Feat clearly doesn't consider multiple tails.
What if you were an Ettin, and you somehow managed to take the RazorTusk Feat. Would both your heads get a Bite Attack?
Scott Wilhelm wrote: What if you were an Ettin, and you somehow managed to take the RazorTusk Feat. Would both your heads get a Bite Attack? Lacks the "with your head" clause, so no.
willuwontu wrote: Oh, it specifically says "you gain one tail slap" then?
I guess I missed that part of the feat.
"You can make a(singular) tail slap attack with your tail(singular)"
Like many other natural attack feats, it doens't imply plurality on its own, so it only grants one. If there was a feat that read "You gain a claw attack so long as you have a free hand" it would not grant you two claw attacks because you have two hands.
willuwontu wrote: Source? Take a look at any feat or ability that grants or includes natural attacks. There's some exceptions, but for the most part gaining Natural attacks isn't easy. An example I used earlier was Eidolon evolutions. You need to take Claws for each pair of Limbs(Arms), rather than taking it once and being able to automatically use all Limbs(Arms) for claw attacks.
A Lion, as the creature, has four claws, two on front legs and two on the back legs. It doesn't get four claw attacks. It gets two.
Pretty much anywhere you look in reference to Natural attacks in Pathfinder, it's not easy to stack a bunch of them. Possible, sure, but definitely not as simple as taking one feat and then stacking the appropriate limb.
willuwontu wrote: It is quite literally granting you an option. It grants you an ability to use an attack. Sure, it's an option on whether or not to use it, but this is not a modification to an attack you already had, like granting the option to deal piercing damage with fists or something like that. This is strictly "You gain a natural attack with your tail". At this point, it's arguing semantics. Whether or not it's an option to use it has no bearing on how many attacks it grants.
willuwontu wrote: No, it's entirely irrelevant. All of those are an unarmed strike. Which is not a natural attack, thus having more ways of making one does not grant more attacks. This is no different from other natural attacks though. It's relevant because it works the same way. Having more limbs to make a natural attack with does not grant you the ability to use each in a single round. This is exemplified by Eidolons with multiple arms, and Lions having four claws but only two claw attacks. Limbs Aren't Natural Attacks. They only grant the capability to use them. Each tail is capable of making the slap attack granted, but you're only granted one by Tail Terror.
willuwontu wrote: So it says "You grow 2 arms and can make a claw attack with your arm"? No, and neither does tail terror, so your analogy doesn't work.
willuwontu wrote: Correct, having more limbs does not. Having an ability that does so is what does. Except when the ability only grants a single attack, not multiple.
willuwontu wrote: "He had 11 points that were all the same."
Oh look, "that", must be only one point.
"He had 11 point>S< that were all the same."
Oh look, "that", becomes plural when the subject is described as such.
Tail terror doesn't do that, to the "That" in TT is singular (Attack, not AttackS). The points being made are similar, but are not the same point either. They're multiple examples of Tail Terror using singular terms to describe what you can do.
By RAW, it gives one attack, because there's no implication of plurality outside of the text. The argument you make that "your" applies to all your tails because they belong to you is RAI, because the text describes only having one tail.
Problem is that RAI usually takes into account other similar rules in order to back up its argument. There's literally no other rule that I can think of that automatically grants more natural attacks when adding limbs with which to make them. So your RAI of Tail Terror is based on anything but what's presented in Pathfinder.
I could be missing another feat or ability which does that, but I haven't seen it. If you can provide an example of this happening, then we can have a discussion about that, and I'd even be likely to agree with you if that's the case.
So far, all you've given is an interpretation that "your" means multiple, even though the entire feat describes singular.
I mean, think of it this way. If I gave you a gift and said "You get a free car wash for your car." and you had three cars, do you think I need to give you three washes? No. You get one. You can use it for either of the three, but you only get one.
willuwontu wrote: 11 instances of the same thing is one point. Because if you commit 11 murders, you can only get punished for one. Thems the rules by Willuwontu.
willuwontu wrote: You mean the 4 (actually different) instances that support mine? Which ones? Because if they're the ones I think you're pointing out, they've pretty much been disproven by now. Do everyone the favor and clearly lay the points out in your own words (or at least quote it) so they may be addressed directly, similar to how I address my direct points below.
willuwontu wrote: Lacks the "with your head" clause, so no. "with your head" is more restrictive though. By the feats description, you wouldn't need a head or teeth at all. You can just bite with whatever, and since that's the case, by your own logic with TT, you can bite as many times as you'd like, since a body has multiple "whatever"s to bite with.
It's the same as Tail Terror, just less restrictive of which you can inflict the Bite natural attack. Interesting!
Seems like a silly notion, right?
To get things moving I'll make it easy and just lay out all my arguments:
Point 1: You must have a capable limb with which to use a natural attack. (Willuwontu has agreed with me on this one)
Point 2: Gaining an additional limb does not automatically grant new natural attacks.
Point 3: When gaining an ability that grants a natural attack, it denotes how many are granted within the functional text.
Point 4: Singular terms imply a single thing is granted. "This" "Attack", "Tail", etc. are singular terms. "Attacks", "Tails",etc. are plural terms.
Point 5: "That" and "Your" are terms that can imply singular or plural nature, which is determined by the noun it references. "Your Car" = Singular. "Your Tail" = Singular. "Your Tails" = Plural.
Darkblitz9 wrote: A Lion, as the creature, has four claws, two on front legs and two on the back legs. It doesn't get four claw attacks. It gets two. Lions get four claw attacks (and a bite) when charging and grappling. Creatures that have four legs with a claw on each leg tend to get rake to account for the fact that except when pouncing and grappling they can't bring all their claws to bear on an enemy. Upright creatures that can "hop" when melee attacking get full use of their hind claws/talons instead of getting rake. So, unless kitsune normally walk around on their nine tails this isn't really relevant.
willuwontu wrote: You mean the 4 (actually different) instances that support mine?
Darkblitz9 wrote: Which ones? Because if they're the ones I think you're pointing out, they've pretty much been disproven by now.
This is news to me and I'm the one that posted the points. I found 5 examples, only one (Jotungrip) had any sort of opposition. The others are as follows:
Feral Combat Training wrote: Choose one of your natural weapons. While using the selected natural weapon, you can apply the effects of feats that have Improved Unarmed Strike as a prerequisite. Feral Grace wrote: Choose one of the animal companion’s natural attack. When the animal companion makes a melee attack with the chosen natural attack using its Dexterity bonus on attack rolls and its Strength bonus on damage rolls, it adds 1/4 of its Hit Dice as a bonus on damage rolls. Improved natural attack wrote: Choose one of the creature’s natural attack forms (not an unarmed strike). The damage for this natural attack increases by one step on the following list, as if the creature’s size had increased by one category. Tangled Limbs wrote: Choose one weapon with the reach special quality.When you attempt a trip combat maneuver check with the chosen weapon, your target doesn’t receive a bonus to its CMD against your trip attempt for having more than two legs. In each case, the term "one" (which is a commonly singular term) is generally interpreted to be plural with regard to the feat. To elaborate:
Feral Combat Training: If I'm a druid with 8 tentacles and I choose tentacle all 8 tentacles benefit from this feat as opposed to it only applying to say tentacle number 4 with the other 7 being excluded.
Feral Grace: I have a lion animal companion and I pick claw, this feat applies to both claws and it's rake attack instead of it only applying to it's two front claws or worse only it's left paw.
Improved natural attack: this is exactly the same as feral grace.
Tangled Limbs: If I'm running around with a +3 flaming Guisarme, and it gets destroyed. I can pick up the +2 shocking Guisarme laying on the ground and use this feat with that weapon as well. As opposed to the feat applying only to the first weapon.
A lion has 2 claw attacks.
A lion that meets certain conditions gains more.
That doesn't change the fact that a lion has 2 claw attacks.
It's a poor argument based on conditions that have nothing to do with this feat. Terror tail wont give kore tail attacks while charging. Or having more tails. So let's drop lions because it's moot and misleading
Darkblitz9 wrote: "You can make a(singular) tail slap attack with your tail(singular)"
Like many other natural attack feats, it doens't imply plurality on its own, so it only grants one. If there was a feat that read "You gain a claw attack so long as you have a free hand" it would not grant you two claw attacks because you have two hands.
Quote: Take a look at any feat or ability that grants or includes natural attacks. There's some exceptions, but for the most part gaining Natural attacks isn't easy. And this would fall under being an exception.
Quote: This is strictly "You gain a natural attack with your tail". Except it's not, it's strictly "You can make a tail slap attack with your tail." Which leads to completely
Quote: This is no different from other natural attacks though. It's relevant because it works the same way. 1. It's not a natural attack.
2. I was unaware a monk could make their normal iteratives with a manufactured weapon and then attack with an unarmed strike after using all of their iteratives from BAB with the manufactured weapon because they work the same way as a natural attack.
Quote: No, and neither does tail terror, so your analogy doesn't work. Nor did the original one.
Quote: Except when the ability only grants a single attack, not multiple. Except when the ability grants no natural attacks.
Quote: Oh look, "that", becomes plural when the subject is described as such.
Tail terror doesn't do that, to the "That" in TT is singular (Attack, not AttackS).
>Oh look, "that", becomes plural when the subject is described as such.
I guess the subject of TT isn't written in the plural.
Ooooh nooooo , I guess my whole argument is wrong because it's written in the singular and paizo never has anything written in the singular that affects multiple things. /s
jabbing style wrote: Benefit: When you hit a target with an unarmed strike and you have hit that target with an unarmed strike previously that round, you deal an extra 1d6 points of damage to that target. I guess that the singular form is why jabbing style only works on the second unarmed strike you make against a target and the 3rd on up don't. Because it only works if they've been hit by "an" unarmed strike, not unarmed strikes.
Quote: Because if you commit 11 murders, you can only get punished for one. Thems the rules by Willuwontu. Because that's totally not 11 different murders. /s
Instead, it's more of they're the same article about the murder printed 11 times. Which is 1 arcticle, just multiple instances of it.
Similarly
• You're wrong
• You're wrong
• You're wrong
Isn't me having 3 different points of you being wrong, it's the same point made 3 times.
Quote: Which ones? Because if they're the ones I think you're pointing out, they've pretty much been disproven by now. Do everyone the favor and clearly lay the points out in your own words (or at least quote it) so they may be addressed directly, similar to how I address my direct points below. The ones in this point. I'd do a quote except the forums break it up, copy paste breaks the formatting, and I'm on mobile.
Quote: "with your head" is more restrictive though. By the feats description, you wouldn't need a head or teeth at all. And yet there's things out there saying you're restricted by the number of limbs you have.
Quote: Point 1: You must have a capable limb with which to use a natural attack. (Willuwontu has agreed with me on this one) Still agree
Quote: Point 2: Gaining an additional limb does not automatically grant new natural attacks. This is true, having more limbs does not grant more natural attacks on its own. Things like gaining 4 claw attacks from different abilities and only 2 arms (thus only gaining 2 claw attacks), and later gaining more arms (that aren't limited from gaining Natural attacks/ contributing to your allowed amount of attacks), would grant you more natural attacks. Essentially gaining more limbs does not grant more natural attacks, having an ability that grants them for your limbs does.
So yes, I agree with you.
Quote: Point 3: When gaining an ability that grants a natural attack, it denotes how many are granted within the functional text. Not always.
Quote: Point 4: Singular terms imply a single thing is granted. "This" "Attack", "Tail", etc. are singular terms. "Attacks", "Tails",etc. are plural terms. Singular language does not do so. Lordkalias demonstrates this quite well in his post.
Quote: Point 5: "That" and "Your" are terms that can imply singular or plural nature, which is determined by the noun it references. "Your Car" = Singular. "Your Tail" = Singular. "Your Tails" = Plural. I mean, this is true? Has no bearing on this though, as referenced in my response to point 4.
Cavall wrote: It's a poor argument based on conditions that have nothing to do with this feat.
...
So let's drop lions because it's moot and misleading
I agree.
|
