YOU as a player will eventually gain a higher BAB and the ability to make multiple attacks using different things.That doesn't apply to Natural Attacks. To the point the Shifter needs a special ability to allow them to do so, Shifter's Fury.
Melklador and Cavall have the point. Though on Cavall's, holding a weapon wouldn't invalidate things. Using it would, because it would overwrite being the only natural weapon bonus by defaulting it to secondary during the full attack. Like Minotaur and his Axe + Gore.
It would become more complicated if weilding a weapon altered things, because technically anything can be an Improvised Weapon (and of course Unarmed Strike is a weapon (and specifically called out as not a natural attack)), which would make it as Archmic is trying to argue that anything with hands cannot have only one natural attack.
Isaac... you realize that you are COMPLETELY IGNORING whole sections of the rule; right?
You're literally being "THAT GUY" at the game table; no matter HOW I present the facts and show you in the exact same rule that it works one way and not the other you are refusing to look at it; even when provided links to the evidence.I've shown MULTIPLE times in MULTIPLE ways using MULTIPLE sources and even your OWN EXAMPLES against you in this discussion. The Minotaur's Powerful Charge ability stats it increases the damage, but it doesn't specifically state what the increased damage is. The Planetar Angel's Slam attack states that if you use it you can't use the greatsword. Your defense of it was actually so weak I didn't even want to point out that there are ENTIRE BUILDS that allow you to use a two-handed weapon and a one-handed weapon for two-weapon fighting.
WE can even use TENGU which shows the amount of damage its bite deals when you use it by itself or if you use it with a weapon as well. It's an even BETTER example because it's a PLAYABLE RACE!
It and the link shows that it's a level 1 Rogue that has the same 0 BAB as the WHW and shows the penalty to attack that it receives when it uses it in conjunction with a weapon. BUT IT CAN STILL BE USED WITH A WEAPON AT LEVEL 1 WITH 0 BAB. WHICH MEANS IT'S NOT THE ONLY ATTACK THAT CAN BE MADE AS A FULL ATTACK ACTION AT 0 BAB AND IF YOU DECIDE TO ONLY MAKE ONE ATTACK THAT ROUND WITH YOUR BEAK THAT'S YOUR CHOICE. It's also using Weapon Finesse which clearly shows that if it's used with a weapon that the Tengu is taking a -5 to it's hit.
What's your argument now Isaac? That it doesn't show the bite attack by itself in the stat block and therefore isn't a good example? Please come up with another weak argument for me to shoot down; not that you'll actually admit that you're wrong while still being completely unable to provide proof for your side of the discussion.
All of this does raise a few rather glaring flaws with the White Haired Witch archtype though.
Prehensile Hair, the hex, is easy. Hair uses Int for Str, lasts minutes×level.
White Haired... It adds unlimited time, progressive upgrades including reach, grab, constrict, pull and trip abilities. It loses (or confuses) the following:
- No Int to attack (since Int =/= Str like the hex, which is really the flaw to everything I'm going to mention)
- Damage is 1d4+Int vaguely, which either means it replaces Str for Int on damage, like say Slashing Grace does for Dexterity, or the base damage of the weapon is 1d4+Int which means Str is added on top of that, and that full Int applies to Secondary (alternatively option 3 as a Supernatural ability it may just have a specific set damage like say a breath weapon, however this is not properly conveyed if it is the case)
- The free grapple uses Int instead of Str for your CMB, however checks to maintain the grapple will be defaulted back to your Str
- The trip and pull both don't recieve the Int instead of Str, and thus rely on Str for your CMB
These are all super important because the Witch is a 1/2 BAB class, and the White Haired Witch does nothing to change this fact like say the maneuver master monk who subs BAB for level on CMB/CMD. So it gets all these cool additions that... Well, they will rarely if ever be able to do.
Isaac... you realize that you are COMPLETELY IGNORING whole sections of the rule; right?
You're literally being "THAT GUY" at the game table; no matter HOW I present the facts and show you in the exact same rule that it works one way and not the other you are refusing to look at it; even when provided links to the evidence.
I have read everything you put up. From Tiger, to multiple links to Universal Monster Rules.
I understand the point you are making, and have presented a number of examples which prove it false. A number of other people have also agreed and presented evidence to prove your point false.
The arguement you've presented is "well, it says typical, so your point is invalid", or alternatively "that doesn't count because I disagree". If everyone here were the proverbial table, you would be the individual dragging things out, as you've been the only one here refusing to look at the provided evidence.
I have read everything you put up. From Tiger, to multiple links to Universal Monster Rules.
I understand the point you are making, and have presented a number of examples which prove it false. A number of other people have also agreed and presented evidence to prove your point false.
The arguement you've presented is "well, it says typical, so your point is invalid", or alternatively "that doesn't count because I disagree". If everyone here were the proverbial table, you would be the individual dragging things out, as you've been the only one here refusing to look at the provided evidence.
First, none of the examples you posted proved me false as I then posted my counter arguments with links to proof.
Secondly, the argument I've presented is "Well, it says typical" and "that doesn't count because I disagree"? That's a weak argument that I would never make especially since those arguments have no facts to back them up with. Also, I haven't quoted anything partially; even saying that Sharks get 1-1/2 their str mod to damage but also stating that it's because they only get one attack. Here, I'll make it easy for you. Here's the ENTIRE entry for Natural Attacks, Unarmed Strike, Powerful Charge, and constrict that you said you read. I'll even bold the parts that my arguments were made with and bigger what you keep using as your argument.Most creatures possess one or more natural attacks (attacks made without a weapon). These attacks fall into one of two categories, primary and secondary attacks. Primary attacks are made using the creature’s full base attack bonus and add the creature’s full Strength bonus on damage rolls. Secondary attacks are made using the creature’s base attack bonus –5 and add only 1/2 the creature’s Strength bonus on damage rolls. This increase does not apply if the creature has multiple attacks but only takes one. If a creature has only one type of attack, but has multiple attacks per round, that attack is treated as a primary attack, regardless of its type. 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).
Some creatures treat one or more of their attacks differently, such as Dragons, which always receive 1-1/2 times their Strength bonus on damage rolls with their bite attack. These exceptions are noted in the creature’s description.
Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action (although often a creature must forgo one natural attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a claw, tentacle, or slam). Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their available natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack’s original type.
Some creatures do not have natural attacks. These creatures can make unarmed strikes just like humans do. See Table: Natural Attacks by Size for typical damage values for natural attacks by creature size.
Damage 1d2 (small), 1d3 (medium); Critical x2; Type Bludgeoning
Category Light; Proficiency Simple
Weapon Group CloseAn unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon. Therefore, you can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with an unarmed strike. Unarmed strikes do not count as natural weapons (see Combat). The damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls.
A monk or any character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat can deal lethal or nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes, at his discretion.
*Sharks have no additional limbs that they can use to attack so they only ever get one attack. Because of that, they add 1-1/2 str mod to their damage.
*Not all creatures have natural attacks. Those that don't can use unarmed strike.*unarmed strike is considered a weapon; as you have stated.
*A creature can make an attack with their natural attack and with a weapon as a full round action. It doesn't say that it needs to have a high enough BAB to do this.
*A creatures natural attack doesn't get 1-1/2 mod increase if it can make multiple attacks but chooses not to.
*Any natural attack made in the same full attack action as a weapon attack is downgraded to a secondary attack regardless of it's original typing.
*If a creature can make multiple attacks and chooses not to, their natural attack does not get the 1-1/2 mod to damage.
*Some creatures natural attacks work outside of the norm and these differences will be shown in their descriptions.
When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, its attack deals extra damage in addition to the normal benefits and hazards of a charge. The attack and amount of damage from the attack is given in the creature’s description.
*No concrete formula is shown for how much the damage is increased so there is no other choice than to look at the creature's description for clarification.
*A creature with this special attack can crush an opponent, dealing bludgeoning damage, when it makes a successful grapple check (in addition to any other effects caused by a successful check, including additional damage). The amount of damage is given in the creature’s entry and is typically equal to the amount of damage caused by the creature’s melee attack.
*Typically is actually written into the wording for the ability and we are told to look at the creature's entry to find out exactly how much damage it deals.
Do I disagree with your arguments? Yes, and here's the proof that I'm citing and have been citing this entire time.
|
Archmic - You are also ignoring multiple comments from one of the people who wrote the game that are counter to your argument. Comments which, at the time they were made, were official rulings (though subsequent designers have made statements to change that).
HERE is yet another one. Quoted this time.
The ability is declaring the hair to be a secondary natural attack. It's essentially creating a new line on Bestiary Table 3–1: Natural Attacks By Size (page 302) for "prehensile hair," with the last column saying "secondary."
The normal rule for secondary attacks is if the attack is your only type of attack in the round, it's treated as a primary attack.
The docile ability in the horse entry in the Bestiary calls out that the horse's hooves are secondary attacks even if the horse isn't making any other attacks. That is an exception to the normal rule (stated in my 2nd paragraph).
Because (unlike the docile ability for horse hooves) prehensile hair doesn't say it's always treated as a secondary attack, it follows the normal rule for secondary attacks (in that it's treated as primary if you only attack with the hair).
In other words, prehensile hair is not an "always secondary no matter what" type of natural attack.
In other words, unless an attack specifically calls itself out as an "always secondary no matter what" type of natural attack, it isn't.
Bolding in this one is mine.
And the most relevant of the earlier quotes.
PRD wrote:
Primary attacks are made using the creature's full base attack bonus and add the creature's full Strength bonus on damage rolls. Secondary attacks are made using the creature's base attack bonus –5 and add only 1/2 the creature's Strength bonus on damage rolls. If a creature has only one natural attack, it is always made using the creature's full base attack bonus and adds 1-1/2 the creature's Strength bonus on damage rolls.
This time the bolding is SKR's in direct response to whether or not prehensile hair gets 1 1/2x INT. If a witch being able to make manufactured weapon attacks prevented a witch with prehensile hair from getting 1 1/2x INT, or if that were the general rule for primary natural attacks, he would have said so.
Sharks have no additional limbs that they can use to attack so they only ever get one attack. Because of that, they add 1-1/2 str mod to their damage.
Sharks have heads, so they can still headbutt an enemy as per unarmed attacks. IRL they even are known to "bump and bite".
Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:
Attacks of Opportunity: Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed. The attack of opportunity comes before your attack. An unarmed attack does not provoke attacks of opportunity from other foes, nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe.
An unarmed character can’t take attacks of opportunity
Not all creatures have natural attacks. Those that don't can use unarmed strike.
Unless a creature can not physically move it always has the option of making an unarmed attack. Even if all it's doing is hitting you with a part of it's body that isn't evolved to be deadly (IOW doesn't have it as a natural weapon).
the reason most creatures don't do this is because the will likely provoke and even if it lands it will do nonlethal damage. It's not worth it to get hit just to do d4 nonlethal damage.
Conversely, a werewolf with 2 claws and a bite could still punch you as an unarmed attack even though it has multiple natural weapons.
unarmed strike is considered a weapon; as you have stated.
correct, meaning you get a number of attacks based on your BAB, whether it be a +0 or a +20.
A creature can make an attack with their natural attack and with a weapon as a full round action. It doesn't say that it needs to have a high enough BAB to do this.
natural weapons are separate from attacks that you get based on your BAB. A werewolf could bite you, claw you twice and then kick you X number of times where X is based on how high its BAB is. If its BAB is +0 then this is one kick. If the werewolf doesn't have improved unarmed strike that kick will provoke and only deal nonlethal damage.
A creatures natural attack doesn't get 1-1/2 mod increase if it can make multiple attacks but chooses not to.
as has been stated this is only in the context of natural weapons. If a creature has 8 tentacle attacks but only decides to make a single attack with one tentacle then it does not get 1 1/2 times str for that attack.
Any natural attack made in the same full attack action as a weapon attack is downgraded to a secondary attack regardless of it's original typing.
Correct, meaning in our werewolf example, because it decided to kick, it's bite and claw attacks all become secondary. This means it gets -5 to hit with all of them and it only gets 1/2 it's str mod to those attacks. It does however get it's full str mod for the kick.
If a creature can make multiple attacks and chooses not to, their natural attack does not get the 1-1/2 mod to damage.
correct, and you've already stated this, as per my tentacle example.
Some creatures natural attacks work outside of the norm and these differences will be shown in their descriptions.
Correct, meaning if something doesn't follow these rules then it's an exception and should not be used to try and understand how these rules work.
No concrete formula is shown for how much the damage is increased so there is no other choice than to look at the creature's description for clarification.
Correct, so powerful charge can not be used to understand how the rules work and therefore can not be used as an example for or against how another ability should or shouldn't function.
Typically is actually written into the wording for the ability and we are told to look at the creature's entry to find out exactly how much damage it deals.
Correct, so again examples of this ability can not be used to understand how this ability (much less a different ability) should or shouldn't function for a different creature.
I also agree with Isaac Zephyr on the ability and that either A, B, or C are all valid interpretations for the ability. Meaning it's a DM decision. IMO int should probably replace str and resulting in it dealing damage equal to 1d4+ 1 1/2 int modifier, provided that:
*The witch possess no other natural attacks.
*The witch attacks only with their hair
[QUOTE="Archmic"What is keeping you from making multiple attacks at level 1? Nothing. Nothing at all. You can make an attack with your hair AND a manufactured weapon at level 1 as a WHW. Nothing is stopping you from doing that save for the penalty to attack. Just like someone who doesn't have two-weapon fighting can make an attack with an off-hand weapon albeit at a massive penalty to hit.
Your hair is now an additional limb. You still have both your arms and you can use a dagger. If you choose not to take the penalty and you choose to only make the attack with your hair that's your choice. You still have another means of attack that can be done as a full attack action. Your hair will never get to add 1-1/2 int mod to damage because it is not the only attack you char can make in a round; even at level 1.
You are conflating the rules for manufactured weapons and natural weapons. You are also demonstrating a poor understanding of context.
If a creature has only one natural attack, it is always made using the creature’s full base attack bonus and adds 1-1/2 times the creature’s Strength bonus on damage rolls. This increase does not apply if the creature has multiple attacks but only takes one.
Context matters:
The sentence you seem to be focused on is under the rules for natural attacks and refers back to the preceding sentence, which is discussing the number of natural attacks available to the creature.
ALL creatures have the ability to make unarmed attacks in addition to any natural attacks they may have. Since unarmed attacks are not counted as natural attacks, they do not reduce the 1.5x damage multiplier of creatures with only a single natural attack.
Thank you for covering the bases I wanted to cover LordKailas. It was getting to the point of frustration with the attempted goading and I wouldn't have been able to word it as eloquently.
But yes, everything can unarmed strike, even if it isn't listed. The Bestiaries list each monster's META, not every option available since it's unrealistic. To go back to Angels, there's the Astral Deva who uses a Warhammer. His stat block gives +14 damage, which can be broken down to his (Str 26) +8 base, +4 for 2h the weapon, +2 because it's +2. It has "or slam" with standard 1.5× on the natural attack.
I was hoping they would have the 1h Warhammer option in there, as would he get his slam as well? Or would even 1h the Warhammer replace his slam based on the stipulation of natural attack (much like constrict and powerful charge, a closer reading says "although often a creature must forgo one natural attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a claw, tentacle, or slam", so it may not be a guarantee)?
Thinking on it though, he really gains no benefit from 1h Warhammer + Slam. Yes he would get 1 extra attack, but it would go from:
"+2 disrupting warhammer +26/+21/+16 (1d8+14/×3 plus stun) or slam +23 (1d8+12)"
to:
+2 disrupting warhammer +26/+21/+16 (1d8+10/×3 plus stun), slam +18 (1d8+4)
Give up 12 damage off the main full attack to gain 1d8+4 with an attack roll barely better than their lowest bonus. It doesn't make sense for the Angel to use that combo, even if it could. So there's no point to print it, if a GM really wants it to do it, they have the tools, like I used, to figure it out.
Why would a Wereshark ever just Bite?
"mwk trident +9 (1d8+4), bite +2 (1d8+2 plus curse of lycanthropy)"
Bite +7, (1d8+6 plus curse of lycanthopy)
He's more likely to hit with his trident by 2 points. If he really wanted the extra damage, he has Power Attack which would give him the extra 2 damage, but at the cost of only a -1 to attack.
And finally, the unarmed shark. He can do it, anyone can. Why it's not written is because it is a terrible option for the shark.
"bite +5 (1d8+4)"
Unarmed strike +5 (1d4+3 nonlethal (and provokes an AoO)), bite +0 (1d8+1)
He can do it. It just grants him no benefits within the system. It is actually a detriment to the shark's goals.
For the Minotaur, 2 Greataxe attacks with 1.5×Str always trump 1 Gore with 1.5×Str. Except on Powerful Charge where it gets a damage boost (Shifter's Bull Aspect describes it as an additional damage die, as only attack it would gain 1.5×Str as bull form has no other attacks. While yes, the Minotaur could technically be different as it is only typically the same as the normal attack according to powerful charge, it does fit perfectly with how the Shifter handles it and checks out. However yes, it is not guaranteed that is how the Minotaur got its numbers).
The Salamander is the same, 2 spears + 1 tail slap > 1 tail slap. If the Salamander only had the chance for one attack though, I'd probably go tail over spear. Bigger damage die, still get fire, and they get the grab. However once it has a creature in the constrict, the spear is the option to use.
Question... does it EVER state in the Natural Attack rules that the additional attacks HAVE to be Natural Attacks or are you assuming?
Because I can assure you that it doesn't specify type of attack but it does specifically say Natural Attack when it's talking only about Natural Attacks.
This increase does not apply if the creature has multiple attacks but only takes one.
It never states that it has to be another natural attack just multiple attacks.
Later it goes on to say this:
Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action.
So what are multiple attacks? This is pulled from Combat
A character who can make more than one attack per round must use the full-attack action (see Full-Round Actions) in order to get more than one attack.
This is relevant because it show us what Multiple Attacks are; the ability to make more than one attack a round.
The White-Haired Witch CAN make more than one attack a round. At level 1 you can make a natural attack with your hair and then a weapon attack with your fist, or a dagger, or whatever constitutes as an attack.As said above the rules for Natural Attacks is very non-specific and simply states that if you can make more than one but choose not to you don't get the 1-1/2 mod to damage.
The rule NEVER states that the multiple attacks have to come from Natural Attacks; especially since you can't make more than one attack with an individual natural attack a round.
The second quote is there to give you rules regarding the hierarchy of these two; weapon and natural; attacks when used together in a single round.
An argument could also be made that White Hair and Prehensile hair aren't the same ability. They look similar but work very differently: damage, classification (Prehensile Hair is a secondary while White Hair is a primary), Prehensile Hair has it's own strength score, etc. etc.
As such they should be handled individually based on the rules than by things that one person has said about one of them. Just like a longsword and a shortsword. Very similar but also very different.
Please note: When I posted both the Powerful Charge and Constrict parts it was because Isaac had used them in an attempt to prove his point earlier as well as attempt to get a cheap shot in and I was highlighting specific things in those abilities that I had said could not be used as proof of 1-1/2 mod bonus on damage.
The rule NEVER states that the multiple attacks have to come from Natural Attacks; especially since you can't make more than one attack with an individual natural attack a round.
Except A, it does via context, as both I and Volkard have pointed out. The paragraph talking about the 1.5× on Natural Attacks is purely about Natural Attacks. Weapons are not brought up until significantly later in the entry, specifically 2 paragraphs later in the Bestiary 3rd printing, and that paragraph is specifically about how manufactured and natural weapons interact.
And B, as once again pointed out by LordKailas, every creature has access to at least unarmed strike as a weapon, even those without hands. And plenty with hands such as Angels or the Zombie have 1.5× on their slams despite this.
Trying to make me the strawman of your arguement does not help your case.
Context: of an event
the influences and events related to a particular event or situation:
Context: of surrounding words
the text or speech that comes immediately before and after a particular phrase or piece of text and that influence how it is used and what it means
Event: Attack
Text immediately before:
If a creature has only one natural attack, it is always made using the creature’s full base attack bonus and adds 1-1/2 times the creature’s Strength bonus on damage rolls.
Text itself:
This increase does not apply if the creature has multiple attacks but only takes one.
Text immediately after:
If a creature has only one type of attack, but has multiple attacks per round, that attack is treated as a primary attack, regardless of its type.
Definition of Context
I'll just leave this here for you Lord.
I'm done arguing... It's just not worth it.