How many Natural Attacks does a Lizardfolk get with the Draconic Bloodrager Bloodline at level 1?
I am of the belief that it is 5, and all Primary
1 Bite
2 Claws (Race)
2 Claws (Class)
3 with the highest damage claws or bite overriding the lower.
3 with the highest damage claws or bite overriding the lower.
Why? I have 4 Limbs
There is an faq to the Bestiary stating that claws are on arms for humanoids.
Another oversight of Paizo making stupid distinctions... you trade off other abilities or RP points to have claw attacks which then become irrelevant if you ever have a class feature that grants you claw attacks... rather than reworking Nat attacks they’d rather say “your pinnacle class ability is worth f!*# all bc you picked the wrong race for it.”
RAW on granted Nat attacks are f$&@ed. Polymorph rules say they work regardless of form, and FAQs say they only work if your form is X. Another example of Paizo being too lazy to balance the combination of 2 core abilities
Lets not pretend lizardman isn't a ridiculously powerful race. "trade off" is a stretch. It may have fewer points but +str + con with no downsides, natural armor, a swim speed and 3 natural attacks is a ridiculously powerful race.
There is an faq to the Bestiary stating that claws are on arms for humanoids.
“your pinnacle class ability is worth f&*& all bc you picked the wrong race for it.”
Seriously? "pinnacle class ability"? It's a minor class feature gained at 1st level.
And let's be honest, this combination is a deliberate attempt at grabbing power. It's not really a case of "you picked the wrong race" but rather of "your attempt at min-maxing doesn't work".
Polymorph rules say they work regardless of form, and FAQs say they only work if your form is X. Another example of Paizo being too lazy to balance the combination of 2 core abilities
Stop it. Please, just stop it. You're completely ignoring the context, focussing on something that was never meant. Of course, this thread is not about polymorph stuff, so the polymorph rules aren't in any way relevant.
5 primary attacks at level 1. I mean. That's...yeah. That's a bit much.
Then again, 3 primary attacks at level 1 is a bit much, too.
Even if they somehow fit in the game I was running, no. No lizardfolk.
5 primary attacks at level 1. I mean. That's...yeah. That's a bit much.
Then again, 3 primary attacks at level 1 is a bit much, too.
In practise, at first level, just grabbing a good two-handed weapon is more powerful. It takes a few levels before the advantage of two-handed weapon's high-damage-after-moving fades, and at that point, builds that can full attack non-adjacent enemies (e.g. archers, Shifters, WS-Druids) are ready to take the spotlight.
I mean, Skinwalker, Ragebred with Extra Feature has 2 hoof and a gore at level 1. Draconic Bloodline for 2 claws and you are at 5 (though 2 are secondary) already and you don't even have a bite attack yet. Feral Mutagen or Aspect of the Beast could come online by level 2(instead of bloodline), and there are probably other ways.
A Lizardfolk Shifter could easily have 5 primary NAs at 1st level, thanks to the alternate natural attacks from Wilderness Origins. Of course, that character wouldn't have Rage.
For Claws on your Feet, what you want is a Talon Attack. There are other ways to get lots and lots of Natural Attacks.
Or Rake.
'The claws on each hand can be used as a primary natural attack' and 'Multi-Armed: A kasatha has four arms. One hand is considered its primary hand; all others are considered off'
- that'll be four. It's a reminder that PF doesn't handle extra limbs well.
I mean, Skinwalker, Ragebred with Extra Feature has 2 hoof and a gore at level 1. Draconic Bloodline for 2 claws and you are at 5 (though 2 are secondary) already and you don't even have a bite attack yet. Feral Mutagen or Aspect of the Beast could come online by level 2(instead of bloodline), and there are probably other ways.
In practise, at first level, just grabbing a good two-handed weapon is more powerful. It takes a few levels before the advantage of two-handed weapon's high-damage-after-moving fades, and at that point, builds that can full attack non-adjacent enemies (e.g. archers, Shifters, WS-Druids) are ready to take the spotlight.
Sure, sure. There's lots of ways to make ridiculous characters. They're still ridiculous, though.
One player I had the misfortune to roll with was a weird blend of power gamer and incompetent player; he wanted to make a character that would be so awesome he'd ruinmy game and we'd all bow down to him as a superior being, but he had absolutely zero understanding of the system beyond the most fundamental levels, and even then he was wrong three times for each time he was right.He built himself a lvl3 human archer that he thought was lol so broken. I got tired of his unwarranted bragging and showed him the synergy of a greatsword, feral mutagen, power attack, enlarge person, rage and sneak attack.
I'm,just glad the people at my table don't bother rolling up such a goofball character (except this guy, if he had thought of it and I'd allowed it), going with more generalist all-comers builds.
I mean, Skinwalker, Ragebred with Extra Feature has 2 hoof and a gore at level 1. Draconic Bloodline for 2 claws and you are at 5 (though 2 are secondary) already and you don't even have a bite attack yet. Feral Mutagen or Aspect of the Beast could come online by level 2(instead of bloodline), and there are probably other ways.In practise, at first level, just grabbing a good two-handed weapon is more powerful. It takes a few levels before the advantage of two-handed weapon's high-damage-after-moving fades, and at that point, builds that can full attack non-adjacent enemies (e.g. archers, Shifters, WS-Druids) are ready to take the spotlight.Sure, sure. There's lots of ways to make ridiculous characters. They're still ridiculous, though.
One player I had the misfortune to roll with was a weird blend of power gamer and incompetent player; he wanted to make a character that would be so awesome he'd ruinmy game and we'd all bow down to him as a superior being, but he had absolutely zero understanding of the system beyond the most fundamental levels, and even then he was wrong three times for each time he was right.
He built himself a lvl3 human archer that he thought was lol so broken. I got tired of his unwarranted bragging and showed him the synergy of a greatsword, feral mutagen, power attack, enlarge person, rage and sneak attack.
I'm,just glad the people at my table don't bother rolling up such a goofball character (except this guy, if he had thought of it and I'd allowed it), going with more generalist all-comers builds.
Never get into an arms race with the GM. : )
' - that'll be four. It's a reminder that PF doesn't handle extra limbs well.
Well, to be honest, it's because the rules for using four hands in combat are extrapolated from the rules for using two weapons... and those rules aren't great in the first place.
I hate to say it, and I really hate to say it here, but you know what game handled four-armed characters the right way?
Fourth.
Sure, sure. There's lots of ways to make ridiculous characters. They're still ridiculous, though.
I was not talking about ridiculous character, but rather pretty simple and ordinary ones. My whole point was that your run-of-the-mill Fighter or Barb is more efficient at early levels than the 5-NA-'abomination'.
the rules for using four hands in combat
The what?
My whole point was that your run-of-the-mill Fighter or Barb is more efficient at early levels than the 5-NA-'abomination'.
Picking up a two-handed weapon and using it in a charge is easy enough that the weird "natural attack" build can do that as well, and full attack for well beyond what a more iconic character can hope to do when the situation arises.
I wasn't trying to say that "ridiculous" equals "highly effective," though. I don't care if a player is successful in their attempts to twist the rules or abuse the system or not. It's the attempt that bothers me.And to be fair, the master gun-blood-rager-ranger-spell-song-fire-dancer-duelist-pirate-queen type characters have their place in certain settings, they just not the kind of settings I have any interest in.
Pathfinder is, in all honesty, not particularly well-suited to my narrative style or voice, but it's what most of my players are familiar with, and the d20 system is special to me for sentimental reasons. It's worked out fine for our secluded little group, but can be jarring for outside players with preconceived notions of what a "real" Pathfinder/D&D game entails. So that aspect of my stance against this sort of thing is based significantly more in opinion than the rest.
Rake's different. I'm talking about regular attacks in your Full Attack. Rake is a Special Attack attached to Grappling.For Claws on your Feet, what you want is a Talon Attack. There are other ways to get lots and lots of Natural Attacks.Or Rake.
and pouncing.
the rules for using four hands in combatThe what?
Multiweapon Fighting.
That's a feat. A feat that only reduces penalties on existing attacks. Nothing else.
The feat does not affect anything regarding what you can or can't do with more than two hands in combat. Not a single thing.
That's a feat. A feat that only reduces penalties on existing attacks. Nothing else.
The feat does not affect anything regarding what you can or can't do with more than two hands in combat. Not a single thing.
Fine, then, the rules that govern the penalties that the feat reduces.
And those rule are written down where?
Multiweapon Fighting.
I believe Derklord is referring to the fact that there is no way to generate more attacks with multiple limbs, per RAW. There have been a lot of lung, tedious discussions on the subject, and the verdict seems fairly clear: you don't get more attacks the more limbs you have (unless your bestiary stat block days otherwise).
Multiweapon Fighting.I believe Derklord is referring to the fact that there is no way to generate more attacks with multiple limbs, per RAW. There have been a lot of lung, tedious discussions on the subject, and the verdict seems fairly clear: you don't get more attacks the more limbs you have (unless your bestiary stat block days otherwise).
In other words, Paizo failed to transcribe those rules from 3.5 but continued to reference rules that were based on them... and this is somehow supposed to support an argument that there's nothing wrong with the rules people are apparently still using.
It's still a pretty poor argument once someone has been motivated to actually spell it out.
It's not clear how it works but we either work off of on of two assumptions there.
1. Monsters in 1E have completely different rules that PCs many of which are unwritten/nonexistent and good luck figuring it out.
2. Monsters in 1E work just like PCs except where differences are spelled out. Since most player options that grant extra arms ban extra attack we default to more arms equals more attacks unless they say otherwise.
and this is somehow supposed to support an argument that there's nothing wrong with the rules people are apparently still using.
What? No! It's supposed to do the opposite.
It's not clear how it works but we either work off of on of two assumptions there.
1. Monsters in 1E have completely different rules that PCs many of which are unwritten/nonexistent and good luck figuring it out.
2. Monsters in 1E work just like PCs except where differences are spelled out. Since most player options that grant extra arms ban extra attack we default to more arms equals more attacks unless they say otherwise.
You're creating a false dilemma. There aren't just these two options that you've crafted in a way to support your argument. Indeed, you're leaving out the by far easiest, clearest, and most practical solution:
3. Both PCs and monsters get what the books say they get.
For Monsters, when a stat block says they get additional attacks, that right there is the written down stuff that allows them to make those attacks, even if the general rules don't support it. Specific beats general.
PCs don't have stat blocks, and thus have to follow the general rules.
Since most player options that grant extra arms ban extra attack we default to more arms equals more attacks unless they say otherwise.
Here, again, you're making something appear logical, without it being so. Making up rules that don't exist is not any 'default'. Pathfinder is full of reminder text (just look at just about anything that grants natural attacks), you cannot derive general rules from specific options that way.
Pathfinder is a permissive rule system, and thus you're only allowed what a written source says you're allowed to. A Gegenees can attack with three weapons and two slams in one turn because the stat block says it can. A kasatha PC or even a PC polymorphed into a Gegenees does not use that stat block, and thus does not get to do the same. Unless you can show something written that applies to your character that says you're allowed more attacks, you don't get to make more attacks. And no, the "normal" section of Multiweapon Fighting doesn't do that, it only talks about what happens when you do get to make those attacks - the feat doesn't in any way create any rules, it never, ever does anything except reduce penalties from existing options.
I'm not gonna go in circles in this for the t least 3rd thread with you. I firmly believe based on the statements devs have made about hands of effort being based on the assumption of 2 handed PCs means the rules would be different for 3+ hands. We never will get an answer to this sadly but I do believe I would be on the side of the ruling.