|
I was looking at building a fighter with Sorcerer dedication for Glutton's Jaws, when I realized the jaw attack is not given a weapon category. Looking at the draconic bloodline's claws, they don't either.
Which really put a damper on my plan for my fighter build; how could I advance my jaw attack to master at 5th if I can't choose the weapon category they're in?
Correct me if I'm wrong but all other unarmed attacks fall under the Brawling category, including Wolf Jaw and the Razortooth Goblin's jaw attack, so following that pattern it makes sense to throw the claws and jaws from the sorc bloodlines in that group too. But I don't have a way to advance that category through fighter weapon training, which is really unfortunate.
Do all unarmed strike types fall under the Brawling category of weapon groups? I'm particularly hoping to this question answered for PFS, so this can't exactly be a "just ask your GM" type answer.
I want to know the same thing, partly because of that same spell!
I was thinking of taking "whatever weapon group Glutton's Jaws falls into" as my chosen weapon group, but that's assuming it has one. It should, right? But are natural attacks really weapons? The Brawling ones seem pretty punchy in nature, so I'm not sure if biting fits in.
(And are Paladin's allowed to eat people like this? Since they don't specialize, they'd work, but then is it anathema?)
So yeah, I don't have an answer for you, just more questions to share.
Glutton's Jaw Focus 1
Source Core Rulebook pg. 404
Cast Single Action somatic, verbal
Duration 1 minute
Your mouth transforms into a shadowy maw bristling with pointed teeth. These jaws are an unarmed attack with the forceful trait dealing 1d8 piercing damage. If you hit with your jaws and deal damage, you gain 1d6 temporary Hit Points.
Heightened (+2) The temporary Hit Points increase by 1d6.
Dragon Claws Focus 1
Source Core Rulebook pg. 403
Cast Single Action verbal
Duration 1 minute
Vicious claws grow from your fingers. They are finesse unarmed attacks that deal 1d4 slashing damage and 1d6 extra damage of a type determined by the dragon in your bloodline.
Unarmed
Source Core Rulebook pg. 283
An unarmed attack uses your body rather than a manufactured weapon. An unarmed attack isn’t a weapon, though it’s categorized with weapons for weapon groups, and it might have weapon traits. Since it’s part of your body, an unarmed attack can’t be Disarmed. It also doesn’t take up a hand, though a fist or other grasping appendage follows the same rules as a free-hand weapon.
Razortooth Goblin
Source Core Rulebook pg. 48
Your family’s teeth are formidable weapons. You gain a jaws unarmed attack that deals 1d6 piercing damage. Your jaws are in the brawling group and have the finesse and unarmed traits.
Your answer is right there, you just need to read it more carefully.
...they're unarmed attacks. He bolded exactly what they are, Syries.
|
|
I want to know the same thing, partly because of that same spell!
I was thinking of taking "whatever weapon group Glutton's Jaws falls into" as my chosen weapon group, but that's assuming it has one. It should, right? But are natural attacks really weapons? The Brawling ones seem pretty punchy in nature, so I'm not sure if biting fits in.
(And are Paladin's allowed to eat people like this? Since they don't specialize, they'd work, but then is it anathema?)
So yeah, I don't have an answer for you, just more questions to share.
Honestly I agree with you regarding the brawling group regarding jaws, but considering the other prime example of a jaw attack is the Razortooth Goblin which states it's part of the brawling group - and the fact that all of the Animal Instincts attacks are part of that same group - lend me to believe the sorcerer abilities should also be part of that group.
Because they don't specify the group one cannot utilize any critical specialization effects; so it's not just fighters that benefit from having such a classification. Also there may be property runes that only apply to certain weapon groups.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...they're unarmed attacks. He bolded exactly what they are, Syries.
And what, pray tell, is the weapon group for unarmed strikes?
It's not defined. Fist is defined on the weapon table. Most other unarmed strike attacks are defined, but there's nothing saying all unarmed attacks are part of the brawling group.
I made an edit, were i added the description from unarmed and the razortooth goblin, i hope it helps!
Bestial Rage (Instinct Ability)
When you Rage, you gain your chosen animal’s unarmed attack (or attacks). The specific attack gained, the damage it deals, and its traits are listed on Table 3–3: Animal Instincts. These attacks are in the brawling group. Your Rage action gains the morph, primal, and transmutation traits.
I think it is enough evidance for the "natural attacks" are brawling!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree, those attacks should state their weapon group, and/or there should be general rule stating "natural attacks" are in Brawling group,
which as you say matters not just for Fighters but for everybody wanting to apply CritSpecialization effect.
to the general topic, I think similar came up re: Telekinetic spell that granted ranged attack, seemingly a non-spell attack but it didn't specify the weapon proficency class or weapon group etc. There is more complications there with plausible intent that probably will be Errata'd regardless, but worth mentioning since it's on-topic.
|
|
I made an edit, were i added the description from unarmed and the razortooth goblin, i hope it helps!
As I've stated, it logically makes sense that they would fall into the same category as other unarmed strikes, all of which have been brawling.
But ALL other unarmed strikes, from the barbarian's Animal Instinct to the Monk's stances to the Razortooth Goblin, have stated explicitly what group they belong to. My point has been that no such wording exists for the unarmed strikes provided by these sorcerer bloodlines, and it's an inconsistency in the CRB that should be addressed to maintain consistency, as that's the name of the game for society play; I don't want to have to need to ask every GM I play under whether or not my ability that I am basing an entire character concept around falls under the Brawling group. If they say no because it doesn't explicitly say so like the others, then my whole shtick is thrown out the window.
Berserker's CloakItem 12+
Source Core Rulebook pg. 606
Usage worn cloak
This bearskin includes the head and bared teeth of the mighty creature from which it was taken. When worn, the cloak drapes over your head and around your shoulders, imbuing you with a bear’s ferocity. If you have the Rage action, while raging you grow jaws that deal 1d10 piercing damage and claws that deal 1d6 slashing damage and have the agile trait. This transformation is a morph effect, and both the jaws and claws are unarmed attacks in the brawling weapon group. You gain the benefits of a +1 weapon potency rune and a striking rune with these attacks (gaining a +1 item bonus to attack rolls and increasing the weapon damage dice by one).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...they're unarmed attacks. He bolded exactly what they are, Syries.
"Unarmed attacks can belong to a weapon group (page 280), and they might have weapon traits (page 282).
Note can NOT do.
"Certain ancestry feats, class features, and spells give access to special, more powerful unarmed attacks. Details for those unarmed attacks are provided in the abilities that grant them."
So, the ability that grants an unarmed attack SHOULD tell you what group it's in as the default as that an unarmed attack COULD have a group not that it's insured one.
I think it is enough evidance for the "natural attacks" are brawling!
It's just evidence that THOSE abilities are brawling, not that ALL are brawling. If that's the intent, it's not spelled out in the rules.
IMO, they most likely should be brawling by default but that's a DM ruling as it's never stated anywhere.
Ah, I see I misunderstood what was being asked. Whoops.
But yeah, if they're supposed to have a weapons group, I'd assume they'd tell you.
"If that's the intent, it's not spelled out in the rules."
There are a lot of things intended that was still left out in the rules, for exemple:
Your proficiency in simple weapons is also what your proficiency in unarmed should be, including the wizard. Monk is an exception as they are better at unarmed.
This could just be another one!
https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/crgobt/pathfinder_2e_errata_ from_the_designers/
This could just be another one!
They seemed to be quite clear with their wording: They added "can belong to a weapon group" instead of "belong to the brawling group". So the intent seems pretty clear that "Details for those unarmed attacks are provided in the abilities that grant them" was the intent instead of having a default group for whatever reason.
Now, IMO, a default group would have been easier for everyone involved but for whatever reason they didn't want that.
|
|
...they're unarmed attacks. He bolded exactly what they are, Syries."Unarmed attacks can belong to a weapon group (page 280), and they might have weapon traits (page 282).
Note can NOT do.
Uhhhhg Okay, I did miss that part in the rules. Fudge it all to heck.
I'll hold out hope that we get some sort of official errata or something that puts all unarmed strikes in the brawling category or something. Until then, my character is shelved for the future or for a homegame with GM approval.
That's disappointing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree, those attacks should state their weapon group, and/or there should be general rule stating "natural attacks" are in Brawling group,
which as you say matters not just for Fighters but for everybody wanting to apply CritSpecialization effect.to the general topic, I think similar came up re: Telekinetic spell that granted ranged attack, seemingly a non-spell attack but it didn't specify the weapon proficency class or weapon group etc. There is more complications there with plausible intent that probably will be Errata'd regardless, but worth mentioning since it's on-topic.
Now I want to make Fighter based around that. :)
"What's your weapon group?""Telekinesis."
"Huh?"
"It's niche. In fact, 'group' might be too strong a word."
Would it get Weapon Specialization! That could add up to decent, and balanced, damage. Doubt it though, since it should mention that since casters get WS too.
Could Spell Attacks (as in those that require you a spell attack roll) be considered a weapon group?
Seems odd perhaps, but PF1 had such things for rays (et al).