Does the tail attachment turn your tail attack into a manufactured weapon in terms of iterative attacks? If not, at some point you might want to take a class that gives you another natural weapon. I'd suggest Feral Champion Warpriest to get claws.
Whatever way you go, it needs to be a class which gives bonus damage of some sort. Rogue, or maybe investigator, or a class with spells which can buff damage for example. You'll likely have no significant strength bonus to damage. I remember seeing someone try to make a Str-based kobold dragon disciple and it was terrible.
Assuming it counts as a manufactured weapon for enchanting and iteratives, you could play pretty much anything. Especially if you're starting at lv 10.
I'd look into the Long Lash tail attachment as light reach weapons are pretty rare, and see if you can make use of your free hands in some way. Taking the Smoke Resistant character trait and the Smokestick Equipment Trick is an easy way to get see-through smoke, and the resulting total concealment is an easy way to trigger sneak attacks.
You said you're not worried about your party composition, but what role do you want to fill? There really shouldn't be a problem making a viable Tail Terror build, so you have the luxury of choice.
I’m pretty sure it’s still a “natural weapon”. If you take feral combat training, then you could use it for your flurry of blows. If you’re going dex-based, then you really only need 2 levels of brawler to gain the flurry, leaving you free to dip other options like unchained rogue for dex to damage.
I’m pretty sure it’s still a “natural weapon”.
While a kobold is wearing a kobold tail attachment, the attack deals the tail attachment damage, and some attachments gain a special feature. Tail attachments are light weapons and can be improved by feats that can improve weapon attacks (such as Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization). All kobold tail attachments make up a kobold tail attachment weapon group that can be improved by the fighter's weapon training class ability. Tail attachments can be constructed of special material and made into masterwork or magic items. There are five types of common tail attachments.
***
Looking closer at the description I'd say it's quite evident that they are considered manufactured weapons.
They state the Tail Attachments are light weapons, which natural attacks are not.
They state that you can take weapon feats with the Tail Attachments, which you already could if it was a natural attack.
They state that Tail Attachments are part of a new Weapon Group, which is superfluous if they were still considered natural attacks.
Natural attacks are light weapons. The other things might be more about how unusual the attachments are to regular natural attacks. They could have just as easily been in the close weapon group as the natural weapon group. But instead they are their own group.
But the very first sentence says, “augment his natural attack”, which sounds like it’s still a natural attack to me. Just augmented. Augmented enough to need its own feats and weapon group but still an augmented natural attack.
Natural attacks are light weapons.
Very debatable. But even if we say they are light weapons, why would the description even bring that up if the Tail Attachments are natural attacks?
The other things might be more about how unusual the attachments are to regular natural attacks. They could have just as easily been in the close weapon group as the natural weapon group. But instead they are their own group.
But why are they their own group? Because they aren't natural attacks and needed their own group. There's literally no reason to ever chose the Kobold Tail Attachment weapon group if it's still a natural attack.
There's also the Tail Terror description that explains you're considered to have proficiency with all the attachments. Why would you need proficiency if they are natural attacks?
Tail attachments are light weapons and can be improved by feats that can improve weapon attacks (such as Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization).
That's what the description states. It doesn't say that Tail attachments are natural attacks, so they aren't.
But the very first sentence says, “augment his natural attack”, which sounds like it’s still a natural attack to me. Just augmented. Augmented enough to need its own feats and weapon group but still an augmented natural attack.
Sounds like it, yeah. But the natural attack is augmented into a manufactured weapon. That's what the tail attachment does. Think of it like you're wielding a manufactured weapon with your prehensile tail.
Natural Attacks are Light Weapons
If it’s not supposed to still be a natural weapon, then why mention that it augments natural weapons at all? Why not just say you wield it with your tail?
But the biggest point against it counting as a manufactured weapon is that we aren’t told what proficiency it is. Is it simple, martial or exotic? It’s none of those, because it is an augmented natural weapon.
Note: Tail Terror oddly lets you count as proficient for weapon feats, but doesn’t actually make you proficient.
A Dragonblood Archetype Shifter using the Alternate Natural Attacks rules for Shifter Claws can prove effective for making your tail attack quite deadly... unfortunately it doesn't play well with the Kobold Tail Attachments...
If you are deadset on using the Tail attachments, then there are a couple decent options available still.
Monk with the Versatile Design weapon modification adding their tail attachment to the Monk weapon group and the Ascetic Style feat chain.
Brawler also using the Versatile Design weapon modification, but for the Close Weapons group.
Fighter taking Weapon Training in the Kobold Tail Attachment weapon group.
In regards to if Tail Attachments are natural weapons or not... I am 100% sure they are considered Manufactured weapons. They are categorized as Light Martial weapons. They have their own damage dice, critical ranges & multipliers, and damage types. Two of them have their own weapon special abilities, one being Trip and the other Reach. And the fact that they have their own Weapon Group, if they were still considered Natural Weapons then the Natural Weapons group would apply to them still. Also, tail Terror explicitly states they are considered proficient with all Kobold Tail Attachments, you do not need proficiency for natural attacks.
Why do you think they are martial weapons? They aren’t listed that way in the book and other races have weapons that do state their weapon’s category in their weapon tables.
Tail Terror does not state you are proficient. You merely count as proficient for weapon feats, but not for any other reasons.
And you do actually need to be made proficient with natural weapons unless they are granted by your race. In this case, I’d say the natural weapon is granted by the kobold race, but that could be up to argument.
Being out of the natural weapons group doesn’t really prove anything. That’s just specific vs general. Most natural weapons are in the natural weapons group, but these natural weapons are special.
Natural Attacks are Light Weapons
Surprising. Got the exact opposite impression from Weapon Finesse and other abilities. But again, that just means it's completely unnecessary to say that they are light weapons if they actually were natural attacks.
If it’s not supposed to still be a natural weapon, then why mention that it augments natural weapons at all? Why not just say you wield it with your tail?
I wouldn't know. Maybe 'augment' means changing it into a manufactured weapon. But getting hung up on one word without any rules definition doesn't mean you can ignore a whole paragraph describing the weapons themselves.
We're all aware that the tail is a natural attack. But nowhere is there any text stating that the tail attachment is a natural attack.being out of the natural weapons group doesn’t really prove anything. That’s just specific vs general. Most natural weapons are in the natural weapons group, but these natural weapons are special.
That's not what the rules say though.
The description never say that the tail attachments quit being part of any weapon group. So if they are natural attacks, they'd still be part of the natural weapons group. Which means we have a completely redundant weapon group that only encompasses five weapons from a much larger weapon group. Like having another firearm weapon group that only affects double-barreled firearms.
That's what they being natural attacks results in. A completely irrational conclusion.
You do realize the rules are redundant all of the time, right? Some text restating things that you would otherwise have to dig to find the rules for can be very helpful. And the rules aren’t always as legalistic as you may like, especially older sources like the ARG. So, the intention to remove them as an option from the natural weapons group has to be inferred.
Tail attachments are light weapons and can be improved by feats that can improve weapon attacks (such as Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization).
So, if it’s a weapon attack, then why does it need to tell you they can be improved as weapon attacks? Is that redundancy? Why should one redundancy be more meaningful than another?
So, the intention to remove them as an option from the natural weapons group has to be inferred.
You're not in the defendant's corner. The burden of proof is on you since you're the one arguing against the rules. claiming that the rules don't matter because your interpretation is more valid isn't proof.
So, if it’s a weapon attack, then why does it need to tell you they can be improved as weapon attacks? Is that redundancy? Why should one redundancy be more meaningful than another?
Simple math. Your perceived redundancy is one example. If what you say is true then we have at least three of them, with your example being even more redundant if they were still considered natural attacks. 3 is more than 1.
****
Again, provide a single rule stating that Tail Attachments are natural attacks. Because I honestly don't see how you could ever read this paragraph and come to the conclusion that Tail Attachments aren't manufactured weapons.
While a kobold is wearing a kobold tail attachment, the attack deals the tail attachment damage, and some attachments gain a special feature. Tail attachments are light weapons and can be improved by feats that can improve weapon attacks (such as Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization). All kobold tail attachments make up a kobold tail attachment weapon group that can be improved by the fighter's weapon training class ability. Tail attachments can be constructed of special material and made into masterwork or magic items. There are five types of common tail attachments.
I can understand the interpretation that you could attack with your tail as a natural attack and still get the Tail Attachment's damage. But in no way can I reach the conclusion that Tail Attachments are natural attacks.
I’ve already stated the rule. They are “augmented natural weapons”. They are never defined as anything else. Sure they get some weapon-like options, like enchanting, but they aren’t actually manufactured-type weapons and are never stated to be so. They don’t even have a proficiency type, which all other weapons have.
Also.
A kobold with the Tail Terror feat (see below) can slip this device over the tip of his tail to augment his natural attack.
The attack is a natural attack. Even if the attachment were a “weapon“, the attack is still a natural attack unless you can find any text to refute this.
They are “augmented natural weapons”.
/.../
A kobold with the Tail Terror feat (see below) can slip this device over the tip of his tail to augment his natural attack.The attack is a natural attack. Even if the attachment were a “weapon“, the attack is still a natural attack unless you can find any text to refute this.
"Augmented" isn't a defined term. Basing your whole argument on what is essentially flavor text just doesn't hold up. Especially when it is in clear conflict with the actual rules. But yes, here's the text that refutes your claim. The sentence that has been quoted twice or thrice now.
Tail attachments are light weapons /.../
Tail Attachments are light weapons. The things you equip, on your tail, that can be made with different special materials and have their own weapon group, are light weapons.
It doesn't say that your Tail Natural Attack is a light weapon. It doesn't say that your Tail Natural Attack is part of a specific weapon group. It doesn't say that your Tail Natural Attack can be improved with weapon feats. It doesn't mention your Tail Natural Attack at all in that paragraph.Tail Attachments are never stated to be natural attacks. So they aren't. They are however stated to be light weapons.
****
Question :
How are Kobold tail attachment that different from the Ratfolk one?
Ratfolk tail attachment do precise that they count as both.
The ratfolk Tailblade basically gives you a secondary natural attack, while the kobold Tail Attachment is its own weapon. They probably has the exact opposite effect actually.
Why not make the Kobold one do the same and call it a day?
Allow the Tail Attachment to function as both a manufactured weapon and a natural attack? Sure. As long as everyone is in agreement that you can full-attack with it and get your iteratives.
A kobold with the Tail Terror feat (see below) can slip this device over the tip of his tail to augment his natural attack.
That text is taken from the attachments. It’s the very first line. The device augments the natural attack. The attack is a natural attack.
Each tail attachment provides just enough weight, balance, and striking power to increase the damage of his tail slap.
That’s the second sentence. The attachment is increasing the damage of his natural attack, a tail slap.
... This is literally a cestus for kobold tails. The concept shouldn't be new. Just encase a body part in something hard and hit enemies with it.
Sure, the cestus augments your unarmed strikes. Sure, it increases the damage you'd normally deal with your unarmed attack. It does all that, but it is still not an unarmed strike. It's a cestus, a manufactured light weapon.
A kobold with the Tail Terror feat can slip this device over the tip of his tail to augment his natural attack. Each tail attachment provides just enough weight, balance, and striking power to increase the damage of his tail slap.
Sure, the Tail Attachment augments your natural attack. Sure, it increases the damage you'd normally deal with a tail slap. It does all that, but it is still not a natural attack. It's a Tail Attachment, a manufactured light weapon.
****
I have now explained how my understanding of the Tail Attachment is logically consistent with all parts of the description. You have yet to provide a satisfying explanation as to why the description brings up Weapon Groups and it being a Light Weapon.
Weapon Groups:
Nothing in the description implies that your proposed natural attack stops being part of the Natural weapon group. Claiming that there's an inferred intention to remove it is both dishonest and lazy. Why does the Kobold Tail Attachment weapon group exist at all?
Light Weapon:
Nowhere have I ever seen a natural attack being described as a "Light Weapon" in place of just calling it a natural attack. There is absolutely no reason to ever use the term Light Weapon if it actually was a natural attack, especially not as a redundant reminder text you proposed earlier since they are never expressly defined as such in the rules.
The same designer comment you linked to earlier said this in 2013. The kobold tail attachment came out on the 1st Jun 2012, which means it definitely wasn't reminder text.
So let me get this straight. If a tail attachment turns a Kobolt tail slap from a secondary natural attack into a limb with a manufactured weapon...you would lose the main benefit from the feat.
/.../
But if the tail slap is now treated as a limb with a manufactured weapon, it just means you have a 3rd arm that can only wield this specific weapon. That is a downgrade from using a naked tail. I do not believe that was the intention of tail attachments.
Nobody is forcing you to equip Tail Attachments, or to wield the Tail Attachments if you have them equipped. Either use it as a secondary natural attack or use it to wield a specific type of weapon that doesn't occupy your hands.
You don't lose anything unless you wanted to both eat and have the cake.
Being a weapon is really irrelevant. Though your two points can easily be explained away as redundancy and specialness. Personally, I think the attachments aren’t themselves weapons of either type. They are merely weapon-like objects that modify the damage and stats of a natural weapon.
Regardless of whether or not it is a natural weapon, it is defined as a natural attack multiple times. And that’s what matters to this discussion.
Personally, I think the attachments aren’t themselves weapons of either type. They are merely weapon-like objects that modify the damage and stats of a natural weapon.
And here's where we differ. The description explicitly states that the Tail Attachments are light weapons, which is obvious proof that they are weapons.
Regardless of whether or not it is a natural weapon, it is defined as a natural attack multiple times. And that’s what matters to this discussion.
That's my point. You attack with the Tail Attachment, not the Tail Slap natural attack. And the Tail Attachment is never defined as a natural attack. The description proves it isn't a natural attack by giving us the statistics of the weapons, such as designating it as a light weapon and telling us what weapon group it belongs to.
You simply don't do that for natural attacks.Though your two points can easily be explained away as redundancy and specialness.
No, they really can not. There's a difference between meeting and dismissing arguments, and you are clearly doing the latter. Maybe unintentionally.
Designating something as a 'Light Weapon' is not redundancy but simply proof that it isn't a natural attack. If half of the rules doesn't make sense with your interpretation, then it isn't the rules that are the problem.
Natural attacks are also light weapons. Being a light weapon doesn’t make the natural attack not a natural attack. And as you have already proven, not everyone knows that natural attacks are light weapons, so reminder text for that makes an incredible amount of sense.
But still, being a weapon is irrelevant to the point. The attack is a natural attack, whether it’s a weapon or not, and the intention is all through the text.
Description
A kobold with the Tail Terror feat (see below) can slip this device over the tip of his tail to augment his natural attack. Each tail attachment provides just enough weight, balance, and striking power to increase the damage of his tail slap. It takes a full-round action to slip on a kobold tail attachment, and the kobold gains a +4 bonus against disarm attempts made to remove his tail attachment.While a kobold is wearing a kobold tail attachment, the attack deals the tail attachment damage, and some attachments gain a special feature.
If it's a natural attack, then if it is also your only natural attack (normal for kobolds) then it becomes primary.
If it's a manufactured weapon (my opinion FWIW) then you can do iterative attacks with it.
In neither case is it a secondary natural attack.
To be clear, in this case there is a difference between a natural attack and a natural weapon. The attachment is not a natural weapon, but the attack you make with it is still a natural attack.
I’m not sure if the attachment is even really a “weapon” though, because it doesn’t have a proficiency. And if I’m right, it doesn’t need a proficiency because you make the attack as a natural attack. And for that same reason, tail terror only lets you qualify for weapon feats, instead of just making you proficient with the attachments.
In my opinion, you should ask your GM for a ruling. That way you know where you stand and can plan accordingly. If he lets it be considered a manufactured weapon with iterative attacks, then you don't have to worry about using other weapons other than a backup bow. If he says it's a natural attack whether you use an attachment or not, then you're stuck on a single attack. And in that case you will want either another weapon, natural or manufactured, or be a full caster and use the tail as a backup for enemies that manage to get close.
If you go with another natural weapon, claws are the easiest to get but there are others. The alternate attack rules for Shifter can give you a decent selection, but you wouldn't be able to wear metal armor. There's also several items that give natural attacks. And even if you go with claws, you can give up one claw attack to wear a shield.
Just remember, as long as the tail is your ONLY attack, you get full BAB. If you have any other weapons of any kind, other than using a ranged weapon, than it becomes a secondary attack at -5 BAB.
For what it is worth, I believe Melkiador is correct. The rule is poorly written, it could be read without any ill faith both ways but we all know it can't legally be so.
There is evidence for both but stronger in favour of a natural attack.
Is a horse striking while having a horseshoe not performing a natural attack?
So? Can i use the tail attachments as a main weapon with iteratives? or am i stuck with it as a secondary natural att?
I was planning on keeping my hands busy, shield in one hand and either wand/scroll/potion/etc... in the other. Was also thinking a banner/standard as well.
I mentioned earlier, but a 2 level brawler dip and the feral combat feat should let you two weapon fight with your single natural attack.
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 shouldn’t have to worry about it being secondary attack.
Hmm. I seem to have misremembered the brawler’s flurry. You may want to consider an actual monk build, to make that work. Scaled fist could be a good thematic fit for a kobold.
Natural attacks are also light weapons. Being a light weapon doesn’t make the natural attack not a natural attack.
Pretty much all feats and abilities that lists weapons makes a distinction between "natural attacks" and "light weapons", even though natural attacks are technically light weapons. (Throat Slicer, Deadly Grappler, Hamatula Strike, Possessed Hand, etc).
A "Light Weapon" is a term made for weapons that you wield, and designating anything as a Light Weapon severely implies that we're not talking about natural attacks. In fact, unless the designer of the feat both knew the never-stated-in-the-rules rule that natural attacks are considered light weapons and wanted to waste space just to spite their editor, they are explicitly stating that the Tail Attachments are manufactured weapons.
This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat. It indicates whether a melee weapon, when wielded by a character of the weapon’s size category, is considered a light weapon, a one-handed weapon, or a two-handed weapon.
'
If you're asked for a fruit and you bring them a tomato, which technically is a fruit, you're deliberately misunderstanding their intent. If someone specifies something as a light weapon in contrast to the natural attack it was before and you call it a natural attack, you're deliberate misunderstanding their intent.
Is a horse striking while having a horseshoe not performing a natural attack?
A horseshoe is not a manufactured weapon specified as being a light, one-handed or two-handed weapon.
Is a fighter striking while having a cestus not performing an unarmed strike? Depends on if they're attacking with the cestus or their unarmed strike. Attacking with the cestus? Absolutely not.
Is a fighter striking while having a rapier not performing an unarmed strike? Absolutely not. They are using a limb that can be used for a natural attack normally to wield a manufactured weapon.
****
Hmm. I seem to have misremembered the brawler’s flurry. You may want to consider an actual monk build, to make that work. Scaled fist could be a good thematic fit for a kobold.
It still works, assuming you're referring to how Feral Combat Training specifies it works for flurry of blows. Feral Combat Training allows you to use the selected natural attack as if it were a monk weapon, and Brawler's Flurry can be done with any monk weapon.
The problem with feral combat training is that it only works for flurry of blows. And brawler’s ability isn’t called that and doesn’t exactly work the same. You could try asking your DM if it is cool, and I’d be cool with it, but I don’t think it works by the standard rules.
I feel like I’ve already explained the attachments thing enough and we are just arguing in circles. But again, being a weapon or not is irrelevant. Say it’s a weapon, if it makes you happy, because I really don’t care. And for most intents and purposes they are weapons, which is why I say they are weapon-like. Regardless, the text is clear enough that attacks with this “weapon” are still natural attacks.
Note that if you do stick to it being a weapon attack, then you are taking a -4 non-proficiency penalty to attacks with it, because tail terror does not make you proficient with the attachments, and only lets you choose feats as if you were, and there is no proficiency category for it like a weapon would be expected to have.
For the purpose of weapon feats, you are considered proficient with all kobold tail attachments.
If you are proficient then, you wouldn’t need to be “considered” proficient just for weapon feats. Indeed it would have been much simpler for the feat to just make you proficient in tail attachments, if proficiency were required. The only reason proficiency wouldn’t be required is if the attack is a natural attack.
But again, being a weapon or not is irrelevant. Say it’s a weapon, if it makes you happy, because I really don’t care.
Classy. Patronizing comments aside, it is absolutely relevant if it is a weapon or not. I won't let you move the goalposts just yet.
I have demonstrated that they are indeed light weapons, and not natural attacks, but that requires a modicum of reading comprehension. So here's the link to the Kobold PRD. I want you to scroll down to the Kobold Tail Attachments Weapon table and read the simple fact that they are "Light Melee Weapons".
Do you disagree with the proven fact that Tail Attachments are Light Melee Weapons and not Natural Attacks?
The tail attachments are light manufactured weapons for most intents and purposes. As I’ve said, they are at least weapon-like objects. They have their own stat blocks, after all. The light weapon part of the argument was just academic, because being light does not prove something is a manufactured weapon. Non-weapons can be light weapons. Natural attacks are just one example. For instance, arrows used in melee are “light improvised weapons”, but they aren’t “weapons”, so you couldn’t put agile on one.
The main point was that the attachments are still natural attacks, or rather they are used as part of a natural attack. What’s your excuse for the proficiency issue? How do you explain all of the other text that makes them sound so un-weapon-like? I’ve already given many, many pertinent points you’ve chosen to ignore, but I’ll throw you yet another.
Tail attachments can be constructed of special material and made into masterwork or magic items.
Why would that text need to be there if the attachment were a regular manufactured weapon? Is this not true for a long sword, since it doesn’t mention it? That’d be some really useless reminder text if the attachments were regular weapons.
Tail attachments can be constructed of special material and made into masterwork or magic items.Why would that text need to be there if the attachment were a regular manufactured weapon? Is this not true for a long sword, since it doesn’t mention it? That’d be some really useless reminder text if the attachments were regular weapons.
In this case it seems worth mentioning because the long lashes and the pounders description might seem to preclude special materials. In any case there's plenty of really useless reminder text out there.
The only location that the rules in any official capacity define natural weapons to be considered light weapons is in the special line of weapon finesse. Which means that it is NOT a solid rule, but an addendums to the rules for the functionality of that feat and anything that relies on weapon finesse rules. Which means, the only reason to label the tail attachments as a light weapon not only in their weapon category, but also in the weapons usage description is if it is a Light Weapon in all regards. Natural weapons themselves are not light weapons, they are simply treated as one for weapon finesse.
If we look at the only other natural attack augmenting weapon out there (catfolk claw blades) we are given a clearer picture of how these weapons are meant to interact. They change the attack from natural weapon to light weapon.
And before someone brings up ratfolk tailblade again, that is an entirely different type of item. Ratfolk tailblades grant a natural attack that the Ratfolk otherwise are lacking. The blade enables them to actually attack with their prehensile tail that is normally incapable of making attacks. On top of that, they are even listed as Light Martial Weapons, the weapons details are what explicitly allow it to be used as a natural attack. The kobolds tail attachments lack the same sort of wording, but rather have the same sort of wording as the catfolk clawblades instead.
The tail attachments are light manufactured weapons for most intents and purposes. As I’ve said, they are at least weapon-like objects. They have their own stat blocks, after all.
Not stat blocks but Weapon Tables. Manufactured weapons have weapon tables. Do you know what doesn't have weapon tables? Natural attacks. Improvised weapons.
The light weapon part of the argument was just academic, because being light does not prove something is a manufactured weapon. Non-weapons can be light weapons. Natural attacks are just one example. For instance, arrows used in melee are “light improvised weapons”, but they aren’t “weapons”, so you couldn’t put agile on one.
This argument is both misleading and false.
Tail Attachments are denoted as "Light Melee Weapons" with their own weapon table. If you can find a single natural attack or improvised weapon that shares these traits, I'll concede it's not as black-or-white I'm claiming it to be.But since you can't we're lead to one simple conclusion. That they are manufactured weapons.
I’ve already given many, many pertinent points you’ve chosen to ignore, but I’ll throw you yet another.
I'm sorry you feel that way, and I'll be sure to meet any arguments you have after you've done the bare minimum a discussion requires. Accepting facts for what they are.
|
The only location that the rules in any official capacity define natural weapons to be considered light weapons is in the special line of weapon finesse.
By the FAQ, natural attacks are light weapons. Tail slap doesn't work with spell combat not because it isn't a light weapon, but because it is not associated with a hand. A tail slap is a light weapon.Magus: When using spell combat, can the weapon in my other hand be an unarmed strike or a natural weapon?
Yes, so long as the weapon is a light or one-handed melee weapon and is associated with that hand. For example, unarmed strikes, claws, and slams are light melee weapons associated with a hand, and therefore are valid for use with spell combat. A tail slap is not associated with a hand, and therefore is not valid for use with spell combat.
The phrasing in the tail attachment could be better, so it's going to come down to a GM decision. The OP should ask their GM how they want it to work in their game. The advice on how to use it will be different depending on whether or not the GM considers it to still be a natural attack or not. I'd suggest that if the OP gets a ruling from their GM, they let us know here, and then we can offer advice instead of arguing about how we would rule it in our games.
If I recall correctly, a coup de grace requires a melee weapon - or a (cross)bow.
Can an intelligent monster not deliver a coup de grace then if natural attacks were not melee weapons?
The only location that the rules in any official capacity define natural weapons to be considered light weapons is in the special line of weapon finesse.By the FAQ, natural attacks are light weapons. Tail slap doesn't work with spell combat not because it isn't a light weapon, but because it is not associated with a hand. A tail slap is a light weapon.Magus: When using spell combat, can the weapon in my other hand be an unarmed strike or a natural weapon?
Yes, so long as the weapon is a light or one-handed melee weapon and is associated with that hand. For example, unarmed strikes, claws, and slams are light melee weapons associated with a hand, and therefore are valid for use with spell combat. A tail slap is not associated with a hand, and therefore is not valid for use with spell combat.
The phrasing in the tail attachment could be better, so it's going to come down to a GM decision. The OP should ask their GM how they want it to work in their game. The advice on how to use it will be different depending on whether or not the GM considers it to still be a natural attack or not. I'd suggest that if the OP gets a ruling from their GM, they let us know here, and then we can offer advice instead of arguing about how we would rule it in our games.
The FAQ isn’t beyond error. On numerous occasions the FAQ has made rulings that were later overturned or weren’t supported by any existing rules or were countered by existing feats or class features. It just so happens that FAQ ruling is countered by a magus class feature.
Natural Spell Combat (Ex)Benefit: The magus can use his spell combat class feature with a natural attack of his choice. If he does, he gains a +2 bonus on concentration checks. If the natural attack is made with an appendage that would normally hold a weapon (such as a claw attack), the magus cannot wield a weapon in that appendage while making natural attacks with it. If the natural attack is a bite or other attack that does not require a free appendage to make, the magus can use the natural attack in addition to all of the attacks he could make with his melee weapon, if he has one.
A magus can select this arcana more than once. The bonus on concentration checks does not stack. Each time he selects this arcana, he selects another natural weapon. For example, a magus could select this arcana twice, choosing claw attacks and bite attacks. This would allow him to use a full-round action to make all of his claw attacks with his free hand and all of his bite attacks in addition to casting a spell. This arcana otherwise functions exactly like the spell combat class feature.
There would be no reason for this to exist if your natural weapons were already considered light weapons for spell combat.
|
|
You misunderstand what the natural spell combat Arcana does. It lets you make the natural attack in addition to the rest of your weapon attacks during spell combat. The FAQ states that you can spell combat with only a natural attack. The Arcana deals with combining a natural attack with a regular full attack with a manufactured weapon.
You asked for an official source stating that natural attacks are light weapons. The FAQ is official.
EDIT: To counter your casting doubt on an FAQ being correct, Natural Spell Combat comes from one of the player companions, which was a line separate from the core rules. Many, many more things have been incorrect in the player companion line than in the core line or FAQs, and the design team didn't issue FAQs for the player companion line very often. So if I'm going to trust one rule to be correct over another, it's going to be the FAQ that the design team issued, and not something published in a softcover book that they don't consider part of the core RPG rules.
If I recall correctly, a coup de grace requires a melee weapon - or a (cross)bow.
Can an intelligent monster not deliver a coup de grace then if natural attacks were not melee weapons?
Are you referring to how I brought up that the Weapon Table calls them "Light Melee Weapons"? That's not the point I'm trying to make.
Compare the Weapon Table for Kobold Tail Attachments on the Kobolds PRD page (where they are denoted as Light Melee Weapons) with the Weapon Table on the Equipment PRD Page. You should rather easily see the similarities since they are, unsurprisingly, both Weapon Tables.
Kobold Tail Attachments are all part of the weapon subcategory called "Light Melee Weapons". Other weapons in this group are the Dagger, Kukri and Starknife to name a few. There are no natural attacks in this subcategory. The natural attacks are all neatly lined up in the Natural Attacks By Size Table found in the Universal Monster Rules PRD Page.
This should be proof in itself, but we can go further. If you go back to the Kobold Tail Attachment Weapon Table and read the title of the column above their names, you should see a plain as day "Weapon". The equipment Weapon Table also has column titles designating the different items as Simple, Martial or Exotic "Weapons". But if we take another look at the Natural Attacks by Size Table we see that the column title is "Natural Attack".
Why? Because Natural Attacks aren't weapons.
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 natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack's original type.
So there we have it, complete proof that Kobold Tail Attachments aren't Natural Attacks.
Ok guys, I think it's time you took this argument to a thread in the Rules section. This thread is supposed to be about how to make the OP's character a viable member of the party using Tail Attachments.
As other people who AREN'T still arguing about this have stated, including myself, ask the GM how he will rule on this issue and go from there. If he says you only get one attack with them as per natural attack rules, either be a caster or get more weapons - natural or manufactured. Otherwise, pick whatever class you think you'd enjoy because it would be no different than any other weapon.
Ok guys, I think it's time you took this argument to a thread in the Rules section. This thread is supposed to be about how to make the OP's character a viable member of the party using Tail Attachments.
I'm perfectly capable of being grumpy and giving build advice.
Str 8, Dex 18+2, Con 12, Int 14, Wis 12, Cha 7
4th and 8th in Dex
Traits:
Smoke Resistant, Student of Philosophy
====
Offensive abilities:
Hide in 10ft cubes of smoke that you can create as a swift action (Equipment Trick) and see trough (Smoke Resistant).
Since you're standing 10 ft away with your reach weapon you have total concealment and would get your hidden strike damage, which makes them provoke AoO on their turn (Leave an Opening).
The transmutation implement gives you the ability to apply a +2 enhancement bonus to your weapon, and it can apply special abilities. So that's gonna be a +2 Fortuitous Bane weapon when you use it.
Defensive abilities:
Can heal yourself for 40 HP and 4 damage in every ability score as a full-round action ten times per day (Healer's Hands + Signature Skill).
Padma Blossom blocks a lot of nasty conditions as long as you hold it in your hand.
Utility abilities:
The Soulbound Puppet is a familiar that lasts for 10 minutes per level, and you can apply new familiar archetypes to it each time you summon it.
Sage/Figment for a skill monkey with two Knowledge skills of your choice at a +30 bonus, chosen when you summon it. Mauler if you want a flanking buddy or meat shield, Protector if you want to boost your own HP.
====
Feats
1 Weapon Finesse, Psychic Sensitivity(B)
2 Necromancy Implement
3 Equipment Trick (Smokesticks)
4 Combat Reflexes(B)
5 Tail Terror
6 Transmutation Implement, Soulbound Puppet
7 Healer's Hands
8
9 Signature Skill (Heal)
10
Social Talents
3 Social Grace (Bluff, Sense Motive, Heal)
5 Intrigue Feats: Street Smarts
7 Intrigue Feats: Sense Relationship
9 Skill Familiarity
Vigilante Talents - Stalker
4 Lethal Grace
8 Leave an Opening
10 Stalker Sense
Typical Magic Items
Long Lash Tail Attachment +1, Fortuitous
Cloak of Resistance +3
Armor, Buckler +2
Belt of Physical Might +2 (Con and Dex)
Headband of Intelligence +2
Gloves of Healing
Padma Blossom
***
Could take two levels of Brawler if the GM rules it functions as a natural attack. Might be better to do so, actually.
====
@Meirril
Which attack? The natural attack talked about in the previous paragraph.
...or the Tail Attachment attack which is specified as a Light Weapon in the very next sentence? In the paragraph that introduces the rules for how you attack with the Tail Attachment. The same paragraph that you conveniently only quoted one sentence of.
Well, I suppose it is possible to just take an exotic weapon proficiency and use one in a hand if you want to ignore every bit of context.
Don't even try to bring up context. This whole discussion stems from certain people completely disregarding everything but two words in the whole description and then desperately clinging to their gut feeling. It went from frustrating to second-hand embarrassment like 20 posts ago, and I really don't see the trend going in a better direction.
Can you use your Tail Slap as a natural attack while you have your Tail Attachment equipped?
Yeah, sure.
Can you use your Tail Slap as a natural attack and benefit from everything you apply to the Tail Attachment?
"No" is my response, but I don't care either way.
Can you use the Tail Attachment as its own weapons while equipped on the tail?
Yes. It's been proven and you've made no attempt to refute it.
***