To continue the discussion from this thread: https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42vzi?Tail-Terror-Best-class-options, in the appropriate Rules Questions board as to allow that thread to get back on track.
Are attacks made with Kobold Tail Attachments considered Natural Attacks or Manufactured Weapon Attacks?
So far there doesn't seem to be a general consensus either direction on this topic. The weapons description is rather confusing on it's intended usage. It clearly labels it as a Light Weapon, but many argue that since it states that it augments the Tail Slap attack that it still functions as a Natural Weapon.
Personally I'm of the firm belief that it does in fact get treated as a manufactured weapon in the same way that the Catfolk Claw Blades are, as they share the same sort of wording. I have seen a general consensus that Claw Blades are treated in fact as Manufactured Weapons, but the arguments I've seen to the contrary for Kobold Tail Attachments would similarly favor treating Claw Blades as natural attacks still.
Both state that they augment or enhance a specific natural attack, and both reclassify the weapon type from natural weapon to light weapon. Neither of them explicitly state that you no longer make a natural attack or that you use them as a manufactured weapon when equipped. I see no reason why one should be treated differently than the other when the wording on them both would imply they share the same functional usage.
There is no need to reclassify the Tail Slap while the tail has an attachment from natural weapon to light weapon as natural weapons are a subset of light weapons already.
- there is a thread that I think is just over being discussed, that discusses attacks with natural weapons, it is worth reading it if one's grasp of the rules of natural weapons is shaky -
From there, discussing the augmented Tail Slap as being a light weapon doesn't mean it is a natural weapon no longer, it is only a metonymy, more exactly a synecdoche.
There is no need to reclassify the Tail Slap while the tail has an attachment from natural weapon to light weapon as natural weapons are a subset of light weapons already.
What you've failed to grasp is that this is not a question of technicalities but of classification.
Natural Attacks may technically be light weapons but their classification is "Natural Attacks" as we can read from the Natural Attacks by Size table I linked in the previous thread (see the spoiler). Stating that something is (now) a light weapon implies that it is classified as part of the "Light Melee Weapons" group which Natural Attacks aren't part of.
This conclusion was then proved by reading the Kobold Tail Attachment Table where they are indeed classified as "Light Melee Weapons" and not Natural Attacks.
From there, discussing the augmented Tail Slap as being a light weapon doesn't mean it is a natural weapon no longer, it is only a metonymy, more exactly a synecdoche.
It has been proven that the Tail Attachments never were considered natural attacks. Your argument seems to hinge on the idea that we can't prove that the rule obviously says what it says, which we now have, but you've failed to provide any proof that supports your own interpretation.
So please, quote a rule that explicitly states that Tail Attachments are Natural Attacks. Not the Tail Slap, but the Tail Attachments.
***
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.
Most creatures possess one or more natural attacks (attacks made without a weapon).
In summary, Agénor is saying the tail slap being called a light weapon does not disqualify it from being a natural weapon. In fact, Pathfinder first edition explicitly categorises all natural attacks, even getting chomped in half by a T-Rex with 2x str mod - yes double - to the damage as light weapons.
Special: Natural weapons are considered light weapons.
...
1) The Tail Slap is never called a light weapon. The Tail Attachment is.
2) Classification. Natural Attacks aren't part of the "Light Melee Weapons" weapon group, even if they are technically considered light weapons. The Tail Attachments are part of that group, as you can see from the PRD Kobold page.
how is the prd table for kobold tail attachments significantly different than the one for rat folk tail blades (which are natural weapons)?In summary, Agénor is saying the tail slap being called a light weapon does not disqualify it from being a natural weapon. In fact, Pathfinder first edition explicitly categorises all natural attacks, even getting chomped in half by a T-Rex with 2x str mod - yes double - to the damage as light weapons.
Special: Natural weapons are considered light weapons....
1) The Tail Slap is never called a light weapon. The Tail Attachment is.
2) Classification. Natural Attacks aren't part of the "Light Melee Weapons" weapon group, even if they are technically considered light weapons. The Tail Attachments are part of that group, as you can see from the PRD Kobold page.
Ratfolk don’t have a tail slap naturally, nor do they get one from a feat. It is a special case item that has its intent and use clearly spelled out in its description. It doesn’t modify a natural weapon, it grants one, completely different situation. The tail slap from the tailblade is a specific effect of the weapon, and a hard limitation on its usage.
So...tail blades attack as natural weapons because they aren’t associated with an existing natural weapon, and tail attachments attack as manufactured weapons because they are associated with an existing natural attack?
Pretty much... or more accurately tail blades attack as natural weapons because the are used by a limb normally incapable of making an attack, while tail attachments attack as manufactured because they are used by a limb that is capable of making an attack.
how is the prd table for kobold tail attachments significantly different than the one for rat folk tail blades (which are natural weapons)?
Well the weapon tables aren't different at all. Ratfolk Tailblades are denoted as "Light Melee Weapons" just as the Tail Attachments are. The obvious difference is in the descriptions.
So they are secondary natural attacks. And since it was originally a manufactured weapon they felt the need to point out that you do actually apply natural attack feats to this manufactured 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.
So they are light manufactured weapons. And since they were originally a natural attack they felt the need to point out that you do actually apply weapon attack feats to these manufactured weapons.
====
The descriptions openly state the opposite of each other. By comparing the two I'd say it's even more apparent that the Tail Attachment description meant for us to treat the attack as a manufactured weapon.
If it were ruled as turning a natural attack into a manufactured weapon, I would happily take Multi-Weapon Fighting on my rogue and enjoy only having a -2 on my attack roll instead of a -5 or -7.
If it were ruled as turning a natural attack into a manufactured weapon, I would happily take Multi-Weapon Fighting on my rogue and enjoy only having a -2 on my attack roll instead of a -5 or -7.
1) Multiweapon Fighting requires having three or more hands which you still don't fulfill. Otherwise you could simply buy a Dwarven Boulder Helmet and Armor Spikes in addition to the Tail Attachment and two daggers to wield five manufactured weapons at once and go to town.
2) Multiweapon Fighting maybe, probably, kinda doesn't work like that. I believe Derklord has argued several times that the Multiweapon Fighting feat just works like the TWF feat but with a slightly lower Dex requirement. Not a fight I'm willing to take, though.
3) The penalty from TWF only applies to the weapons you are two-weapon fighting with, and only during your turn. So if you're using a secondary natural attack as part of your full-attack it wouldn't take the TWF penalty.
====
And for the record, it may not even be anything like "turning a natural attack into a manufactured weapon" but allowing you to wield Tail Attachments with a limb you normally couldn't wield weapons with.
A careful reading of tail terror and the attachments should make it clear that the attacks you make with the attachments still count as natural attacks, specifically a tail slap.
The overwhelming proof of this is that tail terror does not grant proficiency for the purposes of attacking. And the weapons themselves do not have a proficiency category like every other weapon has. They are not simple, martial nor exotic. So, attacking with an attachment as a manufactured weapon would always draw a -4 penalty for not being proficient. But there are other parts of the text that clearly indicate it is used as part of an augmented natural attack.
It’s really interesting how all three weapon came from the same book, yet all use very different rules text. It was one of the earlier books and the designers seem to have been experimenting with this concept, but never really followed up in later books
The overwhelming proof of this is that tail terror does not grant proficiency for the purposes of attacking. And the weapons themselves do not have a proficiency category like every other weapon has. They are not simple, martial nor exotic. So, attacking with an attachment as a manufactured weapon would always draw a -4 penalty for not being proficient.
Yes, that is odd. I chalk that up to the designer not wanting anyone but those with Tail Terror to use the Tail Attachments. No reason to designate them as simple, martial, or exotic if the only way to use them is to take Tail Terror.
But if we turn the argument on its head, doesn't the mention of proficiency imply that there is a proficiency to speak of?***
The opposite overwhelming proof is a lot more straightforward. That they are "light weapons and can be improved by feats that can improve weapon attacks (such as Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization)".
The description speaks of what Tail Attachments are, and they are light weapons. Saying that natural attacks technically are light weapons doesn't change the fact that no natural attack has ever been called a light weapon in place of calling it a natural attack. And the Tail Attachments aren't called natural attacks once in the description.
And again, the very helpful weapon table has them in the "Light Melee Weapons" category which just moves my point from heavily implied to proven.
Read the description of the Claw Blades and you should realize that the sentiment of the book is that "light weapons" and "natural attacks" are two completely different categories.
The blades grant the wearer a +1 enhancement bonus on claw attack rolls with that hand and change the weapon type from a natural weapon to a light slashing weapon.
Yes, that is odd. I chalk that up to the designer not wanting anyone but those with Tail Terror to use the Tail Attachments. No reason to designate them as simple, martial, or exotic if the only way to use them is to take Tail Terror.
If that were the case then tail terror would just grant you proficiency with the attachments. But it doesn’t do that. It would have actually taken less text to just give proficiency, which clearly indicates that something is different.
But I think you are too easily dismissing “odd”. My interpretation has no odd in it. They are weapons that are used as natural attacks. All of the text matches that conclusion without generating any “odd”.
But if we turn the argument on its head, doesn't the mention of proficiency imply that there is a proficiency to speak of?
Lack of its own proficiency is precisely why Tail Terror makes them count as proficient for the purpose of feats. Because the attachments have their own text showing that your feats are tied to the weapon, even though your attacks are still tail slaps, a kind of natural attack. ”...can be improved by feats that can improve weapon attacks (such as Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization).”
Actually that sentence is yet more proof that they are used as natural attacks. Weapon attacks can already be improved by feats that can improve “weapon attacks”. The only reason for the text to specify this is to let you know that your natural attacks with this weapon are instead intended to be modified by their own feats rather than as a tail slap. Letting you know they are light is vital information for what kinds of feats they qualify for, which is why they are mentioned in the same sentence.
The opposite overwhelming proof is a lot more straightforward. That they are "light weapons and can be improved by feats that can improve weapon attacks (such as Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization)".
The description speaks of what Tail Attachments are, and they are light weapons.
They are light weapons. But the text makes it very clear that you use them as a natural attack. “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.”
Read the description of the Claw Blades and you should realize that the sentiment of the book is that "light weapons" and "natural attacks" are two completely different categoriesThe blades grant the wearer a +1 enhancement bonus on claw attack rolls with that hand and change the weapon type from a natural weapon to a light slashing weapon.
Your text really only proves I’m correct, because it shows you need to explicitly say it changes the weapon type from a natural attack for it to no longer be a natural attack. Merely mentioning they are light weapons is highly insufficient.
The tail attachements aren't called natural attacks because it would be an abuse of language as they aren't attacks like a fist or a sword are not attacks - attacks with them are a punch and a swing, respectively. The slap is attack carried out with the tail, augmented by attachments or not.
Because the attachments have their own text showing that your feats are tied to the weapon, even though your attacks are still tail slaps, a kind of natural attack.
Wait, so you believe that your "weapon focus: tail slap" wouldn't apply to attacks with the Tail Attachment?
If so, that does make your reasoning more logically consistent although it kinda trips over itself since you seem to distance the Tail Attachment from the natural attack.Your text really only proves I’m correct, because it shows you need to explicitly say it changes the weapon type from a natural attack for it to no longer be a natural attack. Merely mentioning they are light weapons is highly insufficient.
You yet again seem to have missed that the Tail Slap isn't stated as being a light weapon. It is the new Light Melee Weapon called "T-A" which is stated as being a light weapon.
If we call T-A a two-handed weapon, is it a natural attack?
If we call T-A a one-handed weapon, is it a natural attack?
If we call T-A a light weapon, is it a natural attack?
This is the inconsistency in your "reminder text" argument that I've been trying to get across. Unless you explicitly state that something is a natural attack, it isn't. You're shouting from the wrong side of the river, claiming the rule to be insufficient when it's never been called anything but a light weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
This is very explicit to me. But more importantly, my interpretation matches all of the other text, where yours just creates a lot of oddly redundant text. Like if the attachments were just used as normal weapons the whole thing wouldn’t have to say much more than you wield it with your tail and then give some descriptive text. Instead we get a huge block of text to account for all of the weird interactions created by having a weapon that’s used as a natural attack.
And tail terror would just make you proficient with the attachments, instead of how it plays off the rules text of the attachments to let you take weapon feats for a weapon you can’t be proficient with.
Seriously so very much page space could have been saved if your interpretation were correct. My interpretation is the only thing that makes sense for what we were given.
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.This is very explicit to me. But more importantly, my interpretation matches all of the other text, where yours just creates a lot of oddly redundant text. Like if the attachments were just used as normal weapons the whole thing wouldn’t have to say much more than you wield it with your tail and then give some descriptive text. Instead we get a huge block of text to account for all of the weird interactions created by having a weapon that’s used as a natural attack.
Ok, so let's look at claw blades again and compare them with your reasoning here and your conclusion you made earlier.
The blades grant the wearer a +1 enhancement bonus on rolls with that hand and change the weapon type from a natural weapon to a light slashing weapon.
So from your reasoning on the Tail Attachment, because it says that it augments specifically the Tail Slap attack which is a natural weapon, that is must still function as a natural attack. However, the Claw Blades specifically enhance the Claw Attack which is a natural attack. The weapon only states that it changes it's weapon category, which we can clearly see the Tail Attachment also establishes a solid Light Melee Weapon category change as well, but if it enhances specifically the Claw Attacks, then by your reasoning for the Tail Attachment, the Claw Blades must still function as a natural attack. Neither item says anything about nolong being a natural attack, and both specifically state that they enhance a specific natural attack.
My standpoint on this is firm that both of these weapons function the same way as each other. Their wording is slightly different, but the context and meaning is the same. So if Tail Attachments still functions as a natural attack, then so do Claw Blades. Or vice versa, if Claw Blades function as manufactured weapons, then so do Tail Attachments
If the weapons functioned the same way, then they should have the same text. They were in the same book. If one needs to have follow up text saying, “change the weapon type from a natural weapon“, then the other should be expected to have that kind of text too, instead of just an off hand statement telling you the weapon is light.
If the weapons functioned the same way, then they should have the same text. They were in the same book. If one needs to have follow up text saying, “change the weapon type from a natural weapon“, then the other should be expected to have that text too, instead of just an off hand statement telling you the weapon is light.
Not really. If they had wrote the rules for the Tail Attachments into the individual discriptions of each tail attachment, they very well might have shared the same text as the Claw Blades. But instead, they wrote the rules for the Tail Attachments into an all-incompassing section header for the weapon group as a whole. Broader language is used to describe the weapon group. Additionally different authors may have written the specific details for both weapons with the same intent behind function.
And your whole standpoint is based on the fact that the Tail Attachment says that it increases the damage of the tail slap. Ignoring the fact that it specifically labels the weapon as a Light Melee Weapon. Claw Blades also specifically increase the damage of claw attacks.
Might I point out as well, that the book these weapons came from was written in 2012, the FAQ ruling that "officially" classified natural weapons as light weapons came out in 2013. Before then, the only classification as a light weapon for natural weapons was specifically from the special function of Weapon Finesse, which only treated them as light weapons for specifically weapon finesse.
. Additionally different authors may have written the specific details for both weapons with the same intent behind function.
Or rather, if they have different authors then it’s completely meaningless that they share some parts of flavor and mechanics. Author A went with it being a manufactured weapon attack and Author B went with it being a natural attack. And so your cat claws can’t really be used to prove your point.
And your whole standpoint is based on the fact that the Tail Attachment says that it increases the damage of the tail slap..
My whole standpoint is based on the entirety of the text and how so much of it doesn’t make sense and is downright broken if the attack isn’t a natural attack. Note that the cat claws simply grant proficiency to cat folk, while your kobold is taking a -4 non-proficiency penalty with his tail attachment attacks.
Melkiador fighting the good fight!^^
Because the attachments have their own text showing that your feats are tied to the weapon, even though your attacks are still tail slaps, a kind of natural attack.Wait, so you believe that your "weapon focus: tail slap" wouldn't apply to attacks with the Tail Attachment?
Yes or no, please.
****
My whole standpoint is based on the entirety of the text and how so much of it doesn’t make sense and is downright broken if the attack isn’t a natural attack. Note that the cat claws simply grant proficiency to cat folk, while your kobold is taking a -4 non-proficiency penalty with his tail attachment attacks.
Well that's your opinion, yes. I'm under the impression that your standpoint is painfully and willfully ignorant about weapon types and weapon groups, while resulting in an even greater broken mess if they were natural attacks. Luckily I don't have to depend on "inferred and implied" meanings since it's been proven that they are light melee weapons.
As written, both weapon focuses could apply to the attack, although they wouldn’t stack as they are from the same source. But something like weapon specialization would require the specific attachment, since the damage comes from the weapon. So, there is still reason to take weapon focus in the attachment over tail slap, for prerequisites.
These are all the quotes taken from tail terror and the attachments that make way more sense if the attachments are used as natural attacks.
- ”augment your tail slap”
- ”For the purpose of weapon feats, you are considered proficient”
- ”to augment his natural attack”
- ”to increase the damage of his tail slap”
- “the attack deals the tail attachment damage”
- “can be improved by feats that can improve weapon attacks (such as Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization)”
- “Tail attachments can be … made into masterwork or magic items.“
Taken as a whole, all of this text explains a weapon that is used as a natural attack, while still having most of the qualities of a weapon. If it’s not a natural attack, then so much of this text doesn’t belong there.
Being light doesn’t change the specifics from the feat and weapon text that tell you it’s an augmented natural attack. Also consider the placement of the light weapon reference. It’s off hand and in the middle of the second paragraph. To me it’s clearly just there to tell you what kinds of feats and magic weapon properties it applies for. Something so important as announcing you aren’t supposed to use it as a natural attack should have much more prominence. Compare it to cat blades that uses a whole sentence and explicitly states it’s no longer a natural attack.
As written, both weapon focuses could apply to the attack, although they wouldn’t stack as they are from the same source. But something like weapon specialization would require the specific attachment, since the damage comes from the weapon. So, there is still reason to take weapon focus in the attachment over tail slap, for prerequisites.
Is that a yes or no?
If that didn’t answer your question, then I must not understand your question.
If I have Weapon Focus (Tail Slap), would it apply to attacks made with the Tail Attachment?
Yes or no.
As written, yes. It’s hard to be sure if that is intentional or an oversight though. But regardless, there is still reason to take your weapon focus in the attachment, instead of in tail slap, to qualify for other things like weapon specialization.
Part of the issue is that “can” is permissive language instead of restrictive language. It’s very possible the author intended its use to mean “this and only this”, but that is not the standard that we’ve seen through most of Pathfinder.
Note that this issue also exists in the cat blades because, even though it counts as a weapon attack, it’s also still explicitly a claw attack.
If I have Weapon Training with the Natural weapon group, would it apply to attacks made with the Tail Attachment?
Yes or no.
I’m really not sure. I feel like the intention was for them to not use the natural weapon group, as otherwise there isn’t really a point, but the language could have been stronger.
All kobold tail attachments make up a kobold tail attachment weapon group that can be improved by the fighter’s weapon training class ability.
If there were a rule that a weapon couldn’t be in two groups at the same time, then it’d be attachment group only. And it’s possible the author was under this impression and felt this text was sufficient to that point.
I have to wonder if cat blades still fall in the natural weapon group though, since they are technically still claws and don’t get their own weapon group.
Taking your previous answer into consideration, shouldn't the answer also be "yes" for this question?
It is the same situation after all.
No, for two reasons. First, it doesn’t really make much sense to be its own group if the natural group is applying to it. Second, this doesn’t have the permissive “can” language on it.
Note that even if both groups do “apply” to it, the natural weapon group would only apply to the attack bonus and not the damage bonus. So, that could be the reason it was left open ended.
No, for two reasons. First, it doesn’t really make much sense to be its own group if the natural group is applying to it. Second, this doesn’t have the permissive “can” language on it.
It does have the "can" language. It's the exact same sentence structure.
"Tail attachments are light weapons and can be improved by feats that can improve weapon attacks."
"All kobold tail attachments make up a kobold tail attachment weapon group that can be improved by the fighter’s weapon training class ability."
****
So the same situation. Is your answer still "No"?
The answer is more like somewhat yes. The natural weapons group would only apply to the attacks. If you wanted the bonus to both attack and damage you would need to choose the attachments group.
The answer is more like somewhat yes. The natural weapons group would only apply to the attacks. If you wanted the bonus to both attack and damage you would need to choose the attachments group.
So that's a "Yes".
But what do you mean the natural weapon group would only apply to the attacks? The natural weapon group affects all natural attacks, and I believe you've been quite adamant that we're attacking with a natural attack.
The attack is a natural attack, but other things, like damage, are decided by the attachment. The attachment damage would not be modified by the natural attack group. That’s why it has its own group.
Also, I think you get confused on this, but the attachment is not a natural attack or natural weapon on its own. It merely uses the natural attack, tail slap, for its attack. It doesn’t help that the term “attack” is probably the most overused and abused term in Pathfinder, so you have to use context to tell what’s going on. Pathfinder 2 smartly did away with most of that issue.
|
The writing in the item is not precise enough to avoid some kind of logical issue with any interpretation, especially when combining it with every possible thing that it can interact with in the game. Both of you are far into GM interpretation territory at this point.
I believe it remains a natural attack, but I wouldn't try to split weapon training like that (bonus to attack applying, but bonus to damage not). I'd either let the natural attack weapon group apply to it or not, understanding that there is going to be some logical inconsistency either way.
Since this item does appear in a book that got FAQs, it would have been nice to have gotten an FAQ on it. But we never did and likely won't. The options now are interpret it best you can and make a ruling, or maybe try to ask Mark Seifter to address it on his Twitch channel. But the chances of getting any kind of official clarification are smaller now than they were in the past, which was already unlikely.
Either ruling has drawbacks. If it's a natural attack, then you can't get iteratives, etc. If it's a manufactured weapon, then you don't get to take it as an extra natural attack. Just make whatever ruling makes the most sense to you.
An FAQ would never be expected. Playing a kobold is already very rare. Playing one that happens to use this feat and weapon is even more rare. So it’s not a “frequent” question.
It’s an old book though. I wonder if there is an NPC in any of the APs or scenarios that uses one of these. Maybe someone with all of the APs and scenarios on PDF could try searching for “attachment”. Or maybe someone could see how herolab treats it. But neither one of these sources would be 100% conclusive, since it’s possible the writers of those could have been mistaken.
Either ruling has drawbacks. If it's a natural attack, then you can't get iteratives, etc. If it's a manufactured weapon, then you don't get to take it as an extra natural attack. Just make whatever ruling makes the most sense to you.
The benefit of the manufactured viewpoint is that you have a choice. If you want it to be a natural attack you simply don't equip it with weapons.
****
The attack is a natural attack, but other things, like damage, are decided by the attachment. The attachment damage would not be modified by the natural attack group. That’s why it has its own group.
Also, I think you get confused on this, but the attachment is not a natural attack or natural weapon on its own. It merely uses the natural attack, tail slap, for its attack.
So the Tail Attachment/Damage is never considered a Natural Attack, and the attack itself is made with the Tail Slap, not the Attachment.
Is that a correct interpretation of your views?
The damage and specials are definitely from the attachment only, as described in the table. The attack is the part that is more confusing. It is definitely a tail slap. And the text says and suggests it is still a natural attack. But it is also an attack with the attachment and modifiers to the attachment should effect even the tail slap, since we know it can benefit from weapon focus. So I’d say modifiers apply to the attack as if it were both a weapon and a natural attack.
It’s the same as how a weapon can be both slashing and piercing. Such a weapon could still be enchanted with vorpal, even though piercing weapons can’t normally have vorpal.
Two questions.
1)
The damage and specials are definitely from the attachment only, as described in the table.
So if I attack with the secondary Tail Slap, I'd not apply 0.5x Strength to damage since the damage is coming from the Tail Attachment, which is not a natural attack?
***
2)
So I’d say modifiers apply to the attack as if it were both a weapon and a natural attack.
So the attack is both a natural attack and a weapon?
1) That’s a good question. Not sure what the intent is. May need to stew on it a bit.
2) It’s a weapon that attacks as a natural weapon, the tail slap.
Each tail attachment provides just enough weight, balance, and striking power to increase the damage of his tail slap.
It specifies exceptions
- “the attack deals the tail attachment damage, and some attachments gain a special feature.“
- “can be improved by feats that can improve weapon attacks (such as Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization)”
- “Tail attachments can be … made into masterwork or magic items.“
2) It’s a weapon that attacks as a natural weapon, the tail slap.
.
But it is also an attack with the attachment and modifiers to the attachment should effect even the tail slap, since we know it can benefit from weapon focus.
So it is an attack with the Tail Slap, but it is also an attack with the Tail Attachment.
Now since you've said that the Tail Attachment isn't a natural attack, doesn't that mean we're attacking with both a natural attack and a weapon?
I may be getting ahead of myself but this seems like a pretty good place to stop the questioning since the answers have dried up. We've gone on long enough to notice the contradictions pile up and the complicated mess that one of the interpretations results in.
Here are the reasons why the Tail Attachment isn't a natural attack.
====
A - We're attacking with the Tail Attachment:
The existence of the Weapon Group and the ability to take Weapon Focus with the Tail Attachment both mean the same thing. You can't apply the bonus from Weapon Focus if we weren't making the attack with the Tail Attachment. Same with the Fighter's weapon training bonus. They are their own weapons.
B - Tail Attachments are manufactured weapons:
Normally the sentence that states that Tail Attachments are Light Weapons should be enough. But luckily we also have the official weapon table that designates them as "Light Melee Weapons", so they are proven to not be natural attacks.
====
So if we're attacking with something that isn't a natural attack, is it still a natural attack? The answer might surprise you...
The core of Melkaidor's argumentation is that the attack is still the same Tail Slap that we've equipped with a Tail Attachment. But Weapon Focus (Tail Attachment) applies, we can enchant it as a weapon, and it has a Weapon Group. So the only logically consistent way out was by arguing that we're attacking with both of them at the same time. Both the Tail Slap and the Tail Attachment.
Which really doesn't solve anything. Because it's been proven and agreed on that we are indeed attacking with the Tail Attachment, and that it is a separate weapon from the Tail Slap. Add the proof of the Tail Attachment not being a natural attack and that's it.
====
Why is this an argument at all?
Basically it's a problem of flavor text versus actual rules.
The first two sentences in the first paragraph, which mention terms such as "natural attack" and "tail slap", they aren't rules. They don't explain how Tail Attachments work or any mechanical aspect of them. It's simply the description of Tail Attachments. Not to mention that "augment" can mean anything.
***
Now if we take a look at the second paragraph we'll see it's absolutely brimming with rules. This is where we are told how Tail Attachments work, the mechanical aspect of them. The rules. And the rules lead us to point A and B. That we're attacking with a manufactured weapon.
***