|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Natural Attacks: Attacks made with natural weapons, such as claws and bites, are melee attacks that can be made against any creature within your reach (usually 5 feet). These attacks are made using your full attack bonus and deal an amount of damage that depends on their type (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). You do not receive additional natural attacks for a high base attack bonus. Instead, you receive additional attack rolls for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack (as noted by the race or ability that grants the attacks). If you possess only one natural attack (such as a bite—two claw attacks do not qualify), you add 1–1/2 times your Strength bonus on damage rolls made with that attack.
Some natural attacks are denoted as secondary natural attacks, such as tails and wings. Attacks with secondary natural attacks are made using your base attack bonus minus 5. These attacks deal an amount of damage depending on their type, but you only add half your Strength modifier on damage rolls.
You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack. For example, you cannot make a claw attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a longsword. When you make additional attacks in this way, all of your natural attacks are treated as secondary natural attacks, using your base attack bonus minus 5 and adding only 1/2 of your Strength modifier on damage rolls. Feats such as Two-Weapon Fighting and Multiattack can reduce these penalties.
-If using two-weapon fighting with a Bite natural attack: Am I correct that the attack bonus for a person with two-weapon fighting(feat) would be BAB-3 (instead of BAB -5)?
-Does Double Slice also affect the damage to this Natural Attack to instead deal full damage as opposed to half?
The bolded part is reminder/reference text, i.e. doesn't make rules in itself (they seemingly loved that crap when writing the CRB). The feats do what the feats say they do, and TWF says "The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6." Natural weapon never use the primary/off hand system and thus can't be effected by the feat, no matter what the bolded part says.
Yes, it's in the CRB, but that doesn't mean it's actually correct. There are plenty of error in the books, this is just one of them.
|
|
The paragraph specifically IS about how natural attacks interacts with other non-natural attack weapons. Doesn't seem like an error considering multi-attack also is thrown right there with two-weapon fighting.
In fact everything about how natural attacks works is referenced in that section, why is the last line dismissed?
|
|
Perhaps something did change, but that phrase is still currently there.
While two-weapon fighting says primary and offhand, the wording in that paragraph specifically says that that specific feat affects it. I am asking how it affects it. To me it makes sense that it is a reduction in penalty by 2 as the reduction of off hand penalty of 6 would remove completely the -5 penalty.
And it specifically says feats "Such as" so those two are not seemingly the only two feats to affect it.
I would like a ruling on double slice.
You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack. For example, you cannot make a claw attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a longsword. When you make additional attacks in this way, all of your natural attacks are treated as secondary natural attacks, using your base attack bonus minus 5 and adding only 1/2 of your Strength modifier on damage rolls. Feats such as Two-Weapon Fighting and Multiattack can reduce these penalties.
I am also of the opinion that two-weapon fighting would not affect your natural attacks. The actual feat two weapon fighting feat and core rule only references weapon/unarmed attacks. Also the quoted reference is part of a paragraph that references normal weapon attacks, so the reduced penalties could be interpreted to reference that.
In terms of intended balance, I think the feat of two-weapon fighting completely negating the penalty would also negate the need for the feat multi-attack that is there specifically to lower the penalty.
And last I tried to find specific examples of monsters that have the two-weapon fighting feat with weapons and still deal a secondary natural attack like a bite at the same time, each one I could find didn't have its penalty reduced by it. Examples: Boggard Stalker, Calikang, Hydraggon, Sahuagin Infiltrator, and Valharut
So if your group decides that the feats work that way its fine, but I would expect most groups and anything officially ran to not have the feat work that way.
In fact everything about how natural attacks works is referenced in that section, why is the last line dismissed?
The last line doesn't do anything in itself, it only tells you what feats to look at for decreasing the stated penalties. Feat rules override general rules, and thus the feat language not affecting natural weapons oferrides the rule part that says it does.
While two-weapon fighting says primary and offhand, the wording in that paragraph specifically says that that specific feat affects it. I am asking how it affects it. To me it makes sense that it is a reduction in penalty by 2 as the reduction of off hand penalty of 6 would remove completely the -5 penalty.
"Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced." You don't have a penalty for TWFing on your natural attacks, therefore, there is nothing for the feat to reduce. The feat doesn't reduce any penalty, only those from using the TWF rules. Of course, you haven't exactly explained how you are using a bite attack in one of your hands.
You want to know how the feat affects your bite? It doesn't! The feat only alters the penalties induced by the TWF rules, and only for the primary and off hands (that's short for 'attacks made with weapons in these hands'). Nothing else.
I would like a ruling on double slice.
" Add your Strength bonus to damage rolls made with your off-hand weapon." This is a reference to the following rule: "Off-Hand Weapon: When you deal damage with a weapon in your off hand, you add only 1/2 your Strength bonus." CRB pg. 179 Your bite is not your "off-hand weapon", which is a "weapon in your off hand", therefore, Double Slice doesn't affect it. Indeed, a natural weapon is never in your hand, and thus neither the primary hand/off hand rules, nor any feat that talks about them, ever affects natural weapons. Unarmed strikes can only use the TWF rules because there is a rule that explicitly says so.
Perhaps something did change, but that phrase is still currently there.
The phrase "A divine spellcaster selects and prepares spells ahead of time" is also still currently there (CRB pg. 220), that doesn't make Oracle not a spontaneous caster.
For Two Weapon Fighting to reduce the penalties from natural attacks, you would first have to be taking those penalties.
You would be voluntarily taking a -4 penalty to your main weapon attacks, and a -8 to all your "offhand" attacks (this includes all natural attacks if you're using a manufactured weapon as well). These penalties would stack with the penalties for using a secondary natural attack.
So if you have a Greatsword and a Bite, you'll be making your Greatsword attacks at -4 and your Bite attacks at -13.
If you take a feat for TWF you reduce these penalties to -2/-2, but again these penalties stack with those for using a secondary natural attack.
So if you have a Greatsword and a Bite AND the TWF feat, you'll be making your Greatsword attacks at -2 and your Bite attacks at -7.
Then Multi-Attack comes in, reducing the penalties for Secondary Natural Attacks to -2. Again, penalties stack.
So if you have a Greatsword and a Bite AND the TWF feat AND Multiattack, you'll be making your Greatsword attacks at -2 and your Bite attacks at -4.
At this point your Bite attack (secondary natural attack in this case) is at +1 to hit compared to how everyone else interprets it, but your Greatsword attacks are all at -2. You've also invested more feats.
TLDR: If you want the feat to reduce penalties, you first have to take those penalties.
|
|
Alright found the discrepancy it seems there was a change. Editors ARE idiots it seems.
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2tm8a?TwoWeapon-Fighting-and-Natural-Attacks
Check that link, it's not doing what it should
To reference what Yure's link says, prior to the 5th printing, the CRB still said this:
"When you make additional attacks in this way, all of your natural attacks are treated as secondary natural attacks, using your base attack bonus minus 5 and adding only 1/2 of your Strength modifier on damage rolls. Feats such as Two-Weapon Fighting and Multiattack (see the Pathfinder RPG Bestiary) can reduce these penalties."
With that part that got removed, the last sentence makes sense both grammatically and rulewise.
The bolded text is not wrong per se--it definitionally can't be--but it is not specific. (...) It is not saying that 2 weapon fighting mitigates Natural Attack Penalties. That text is only saying there are Feats that mitigate penalties. See it mentions Multiattack on the same line, and Multiattack does mitigate the Natural Attack penalty: reducing the severe -5 to a mild -2.
What you're saying isn't correct: The last line says "Feats such as Two-Weapon Fighting and Multiattack can reduce these penalties." THe word "these" means it is about something mentioned before, but only a single penalty was mentioned (the one for being a secondary attack), so yes, it is indeed wrong. Also gramatically wrong, because "penalties" is plural.
Natural Attacks are the additional Attack Actions you can make with those weapons as part of the Full Attack Action.
This is compeltely wrong. You don't get "additional attack actions". The attack action is something that has nothing top do with the topic. Being allowed to make more attacks during a full-attack action is not additional actions.
"Natural attack" is, theoretically, an (any) attack with a natural weapon, but the CRB is pretty much using the two terms interchangably.
A Tengu probably could, for instance, 2 Weapon Fight Fight with longsword and Bite as an off-hand weapon, taking -2 on both Attacks.
Also wrong, you can't TWF using natural weapons. TWF is the rule option of "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon." You don't wield a natural weapon, and most certainly not in your off-hand.
What I said is perfectly correct: there are feats that mitigate those penalties.
There can't be a "these penalties", because there is only one penalty. The sentence can't be correct.
A minor point: as I said, even if you could, who would?
That is not what you said. That's the issue. If you had written that, I would have completely agreed. But you said "probably could", and that's wrong.
The answer to that question of course is that an Alchemist with the Tentacle Discovery would. An Alchemal Tentacle is a Natural Weapon, but the Discovery does not grant a Natural Attack. You use a Standard Action Attack or an Off Hand Attack to attack with an Alchemal Tentacle, which means it would degrade a Primary Natural Attack to a Secondary one just like Warhammer would.
First, the tentacle discovery is a very special case, and second, that's not how it works. You wouldn't make the tentacle attack as an off-hand attack, you only give up the option of the off-hand attack. It's not very clear, and certainly not something to discuss in this thread.
Of course, the obvious counter example is the Monk Unarmed Strike which counts as a natural weapon, but does not grant Natural Attacks.
This is utterly wrong. Monk US count as natural weapons "for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve (...) natural weapons." Not for anything else. General rules are not effects.
That being said, while I have shown you 2 examples of Natural Weapons being used without Natural Attacks, I haven't quite proved that you can use a Bite Attack in this way. Can you, though, prove that you can't?
I already have shown that you can't use a natural attacks as part of TWF, so that disproves the first example. The second example is fine, but it doesn't support your case in any way that I can see.
When you have Natural Attacks, you do indeed get to make additional attacks as part of your Full Attack Action.
This is not what you said. That is what I said ("Being allowed to make more attacks during a full-attack action").
You didn't write "additional attacks as part of your Full Attack Action", but rather "additional Attack Actions".
That an Attack is not an Action?
Yes. There is an action that does nothing but allow you to make one attack (the standard action called "attack action"), but the attack itself is no action.
Are you saying that additional attacks that are made as part of a Full Attack somehow don't count as actions? Whatever.
Yes, that is correct. You make additional attacks as part of the same action. An action is either standard, move, full round, swift, imediate, or free. Anything that doesn't take one of these action types is not an action in itself.
*sigh* so they count as Natural Weapons, but they are not Natural Weapons.
If you think that "counts as natural weapons for very specific things" is the same as "counts as natural weapons", you're either trolling, or your understanding of the english languagfe is so poor that any argumentation is pointless.
Every single thing you wrote in your last post is wrong. Every. Single. Thing.
-The penalty for TWF is not mentioned. Indeed, the penalty has nothing to do with the natural attack rules, it's 100% seperate.
-Even if you count the second half of the secondary-penalty as seperate, the sentence still stays wrong, because the TWF feat does not change any of these penalties.
-Text in the CRB can be wrong, because not all text is actually text that makes rules.
-You didn't say "even if you could", you said "probably could".
-You didn't prove anything, because you didn't prove that the tentacle actually can be used within the TWF rules.
-I already did say that you can't make off-hand attacks with the tentacle, because it's not a weapon wielded in your off-hand, and that's what an off-hand attack is made with.
-"Attacks are actions" is wrong, and the opposite of what I've said. Therefore, what you call "stupid argument" is not one I've ever made.
Oh, and by the way: It was you who started the "immaterial and academic" discussion. So stop whining that I post my disagreement with what you wrote.
Note: Don't bother with a reply if you can't stop arguing strawmen, or demanding evidence (that I already gave) while presenting none yourself. Don't bother with a "I'm not whinign, youknow nothign about me "post, it's what it comes across as (due to the lack of actual counterargumentation on your part). And for heaven's sake, stop misrepeating something you or I said.
|
|
Quick few points.
Tengu cannot attack with main hand, off hand, bite and two claws. It would only be able to attack with main-hand, off-hand, and bite.
By the old wording any natural attack would count as an off hand weapon. Which is why two-weapon fighting worked. Problem is the -5 penalty would be reduced by -6 which by math rules would make that a +1 to attack on those "off-hands" a huge difference from the penalty reduction from multiattack.
I believe that last irregularity is the reason the wording got changed.curious though Thatcher kept both feats as specific examples though.
By the old wording any natural attack would count as an off hand weapon. Which is why two-weapon fighting worked. Problem is the -5 penalty would be reduced by -6 which by math rules would make that a +1 to attack on those "off-hands" a huge difference from the penalty reduction from multiattack.
You're making the same mistake Scott made regarding Monk's unarmed strike in that you're misapplying a rule that only affects a very specific part to affect the whole. The natural attack were only treated as off-hand attacks "for determining the penalty to your other attacks", not for anything else. Which means they didn't take the off-hand penalty, and thus wouldn't be affected by the TWF feat (or feats like Double Slice or Two-Weapon Rend, for that matter).
|
|
By the old wording any natural attack would count as an off hand weapon. Which is why two-weapon fighting worked. Problem is the -5 penalty would be reduced by -6 which by math rules would make that a +1 to attack on those "off-hands" a huge difference from the penalty reduction from multiattack.You're making the same mistake Scott made regarding Monk's unarmed strike in that you're misapplying a rule that only affects a very specific part to affect the whole. The natural attack were only treated as off-hand attacks "for determining the penalty to your other attacks", not for anything else. Which means they didn't take the off-hand penalty, and thus wouldn't be affected by the TWF feat (or feats like Double Slice or Two-Weapon Rend, for that matter).
Good point on that. I missed the other in that sentence. It all makes sense now.
|
|
Is that because the clawed hands would be occupied by weapons? Unarmed Strikes are not made with any particular body part and would not have that problem. For that matter, neither would Armor Spikes.Tengu cannot attack with main hand, off hand, bite and two claws. It would only be able to attack with main-hand, off-hand, and bite.
The anybody part only applies to monks.
And from an earlier thing you mentioned unarmed strikes do not count as natural attacks. Else Feral Combat Training would be moot.
|
|
The rules specifically cover natural attacks and even uses the term natural weapons. Therefore natural weapons do not get iterative attacks. Unarmed strikes count as light melee weapons.
"Natural Attacks: Attacks made with natural weapons, such as claws and bites, are melee attacks that can be made against any creature within your reach (usually 5 feet). These attacks are made using your full attack bonus and deal an amount of damage that depends on their type (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). You do not receive additional natural attacks for a high base attack bonus. Instead, you receive additional attack rolls for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack (as noted by the race or ability that grants the attacks).)
|
|
Currently on phone so can't properly explain, but Natural Weapons fall under the natural weapon group. This does not give them the ability to do iterative attacks.
Weapon groups are just that - weapon groups. Weapon groups are there to be affected by things that say they affect weapon groups.
I'll come back for something else but wanted to point out that off hands attacks are specifically a two weapon fighting thing.
You can wield a weapon in each hand, but only when you use it to make an extra attack does off hand come into play.
I'll come back for something else but wanted to point out that off hands attacks are specifically a two weapon fighting thing.
You can wield a weapon in each hand, but only when you use it to make an extra attack does off hand come into play.
That's not correct. The TWF penalty is only in effect when you actually use the TWF rules to make additional attacks, but the reduces strength bonus is in effect even when not doing so, because the rules simply say "When you deal damage with a weapon in your off hand, you add only 1/2 your Strength bonus." CRB pg. 179
That is not how the CRB uses the term. For instance, the buckler description mentions "using your off hand to help wield a two handed weapon" - the text is clearly talking about the actual hand, in a situation where the TWF rules can't be relevant.
Likewise, the TWF rules say "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon." You need to already wield a weapon in your off hand to be able to use them TWF options, meanign the off hand is part of the requirement, not the effect.
What I've quoted in my last post is from the rules on doing damage with an attack, which is 23 pages before the rules for TWF (and the strength description has the same stuff on pg 16!), and doesn't mention TWF at all. The FAQ that I've linked also only says "you're not taking any two-weapon fighting penalties", but not that you don't suffer the off-hand penalty on damage.