So for my particular circumstance, I have a creature with a tail attack but then it has a poison stinger on that tail. Do I get to attack twice as I have two natural attacks or do I have to choose?
Edit: missing capital letter
People always allow a Bite and Gore to come from the same head without "hands' worth of effort" ever being brought up, so I don't see why the tail would be any different...
Tail Sweep is a Standard Action special attack, and cannot normally be included in a full attack.
Some dragons get a Bite and Gore attack, presumably coming from the same head. There are Magical Beasts with one head that get Bite and Gore attacks, too. Probably others, but I am too lazy to comb through all of the results on AoN.
The point is, the developer's and rule-nazis only care if you want to TWF with a greatsword and armor spikes... natural weapon routines that involve the same body part attacking more than once don't matter. One head doing some biting and some goring, or one tail doing some slapping and some stinging, all is good in the neighborhood...
But it's a mouth and antlers... on the same head, with the same "neck's worth of effort" each round. But oh man, the Horned Hat of the Mammoth or whatever is a staple of every natural attack build ever, and they all have bite attacks... so I better shut my filthy mouth. Go back to mumbling in the corner how I want to TWF with a greatsword and armor spikes...
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that a Bite and Gore shouldn't be able to come from the same head. Do it. Allow it. It is allowed, apparently. However, the hypocrisy of "hands' worth of effort" is blatant, and quite frankly, is bull$#!+. If one head/neck can Bite and Gore, then I should be able to 2H a greatsword and shoulder some armor spikes...
Combat rounds last about 6 seconds, right?
I've seen a horse charging a dog, pushing him with the head against a fence, then trampling him into the ground with some bad bites within less time, so several different natural attacks from one "limb" don't seem too unrealistic to me.
OMG, he used "realistic" in the Rules forum! Torches and pitchforks!
Combat rounds last about 6 seconds, right?
I've seen a horse charging a dog, pushing him with the head against a fence, then trampling him into the ground with some bad bites within less time, so several different natural attacks from one "limb" don't seem too unrealistic to me.
OMG, he used "realistic" in the Rules forum! Torches and pitchforks!
And a soldier dedicated to their craft could easily manage to succuessfully wield a greatsword, swinging it with both hands, and then smash a set of shoulder spikes immediately into a target... be it the same target as the greatsword, or different. And, although completely realistic, it isn't allowed because of some BS, unofficial "hands' worth of effort" nonsense that with blatant hypocrisy doesn't apply to natural attacks.
Want to talk "realistic" in the rules arena... let's talk about a four-armed Kasatha using two greatswords. Realistically, it has two hands for two-handed weapon "A", and (look at this) two MORE hands for ANOTHER two-handed weapon, we can call "B". Realistically, the Kasatha literally has all the hands for all the efforts required. But some BS stupid hypocritical made-up "rule" says that the Kasatha is treated as only having two arms.
Once again, I am all for allowing a Bite and Gore from the same head. I just want to same logic to be universal throughout all martial combat rules. Definitely DO NOT take away the Bite/Gore option from the natural attack builds. Never take away. Always add new options to other areas to bring them up to speed... like getting rid of the BS "hands' worth of effort" argument entirely.
There are several examples for gore + bite in the Bestiaries. The gargoyle is probably the most popular. AoNPRD's search listed 78 monsters with both words in the description.
I couldn't find a single example for tail slap + sting, though. Unless you count the eidolon and its cousin, the unfettered eidolon - they allow this combination.
Personally I wouldn't worry. A monster of a given CR is supposed to do a certain damage (see Bestiary table 1-1), and if the combination tail slap + sting helps with that, it's in. If it's too much, it stays out. Players care more about flavor, battle feeling, XP and loot anyway.
Thanks. Now I can say that my wyvern demon fallen angel can bite, claw, claw, tail, sting (and poison as 1d4 Con damage every 1d4 rounds) in one round. Trust me, not the most broken CR8 I've made. #evil campaign
I think Gore and Bite are the only two natural attack types that I've seen that are on a single appendage and are allowed to be used together.
Personally I don't like it but there are multiple examples in the bestiary.
As for your particular example, I would honestly think no it shouldn't work, but it's an NPC. Whether or not the monster is ultimately balanced is really decided by "Does it fulfill the desired combat experience of being challenging without being too challenging to result in a TPK". And that is actually a pretty large grey area.
I'm certain that for this NPC doing a tail slap and a sting isn't going to result in any problem.
Remember NPCs don't need to follow the same rules as PCs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Think of it kind of like a bola... the tail slaps you with its mid-section, then the loose end wraps around, and POW... sticks you with the stinger. Ouch.
A gore attack and bite attack could easily be tusks/horns/antlers that are literally in the way of it getting its mouth on you... what is it, the black dragons drawn with the horns that curl around pounting directly in front of its jaws? It HAS to gore whatever it bites.
Natural attacks are treated separately to weapons. Easiest way to think about a full natural attack is that over the course of 6 seconds the creature had one good chance to use the limb one way and one good chance to use it the other way.
Thanks. Now I can say that my wyvern demon fallen angel can bite, claw, claw, tail, sting (and poison as 1d4 Con damage every 1d4 rounds) in one round. Trust me, not the most broken CR8 I've made. #evil campaign
Five attacks can totally work for that CR - reference value would be roughly 5 to 7 damage per attack, in average.
Just be aware that the creature is sometimes limited to a single attack and loses a lot of damage output then. And splitting damage among many attacks means being vulnerable to damage reduction - a level 8 invulnerable barbarian will ignore roughly two thirds of the damage. In most cases, they still will have to save against poison, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a published monster which not only uses the same body part (head) for two different natural attacks, but the same part of the same body part (mouth) for two of them (gore from tusks, and bite). If that flies, tail slap + sting should, too. Just be wary that the same should then apply to PCs, too.
@VoodistMonk: For someone who allegedly hates the "hands' worth of effort" stuff, you're the one who starts mentioning them surprisingly often. Please, stop bringing it up in threads that have nothing to do with that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My Bad.
A discussion on the same body part being allowed multiple attacks in the same round just seems to $#!+ all over the "hands' worth of effort" rule... seems to highlight the hypocrisy of it all. I thought it fit right into this discussion, honestly.
And a soldier dedicated to their craft could easily manage to succuessfully wield a greatsword, swinging it with both hands, and then smash a set of shoulder spikes immediately into a target... be it the same target as the greatsword, or different. And, although completely realistic, it isn't allowed because of some BS, unofficial "hands' worth of effort" nonsense that with blatant hypocrisy doesn't apply to natural attacks.It's allowed. It's just not everyone can do it. You need to take a Feat or something.
Like Spiked Destroyer and Shield Slam: Full Attack, Full Round Action, but if you hit with the Shield, you get a Free Bull Rush instead of it costing a Standard Action like it normally does, then if the Bull Rush works, you get a Swift Action Armor Spike Attack.
Could just forget TWF and full attack with a Greatsword, then Armor Spikes, too... it would be better if the stupid argument didn't exist at all.
The very first whiney, sniveling b!tch that decided to complain about someone else TWF with a greatsword and armor spikes should have been slapped and ridiculed until they curled up in a ball and peed.
It NEVER should have been an argument.
Definitely shouldn't have become such an issue that stupid f!ck!ng $#!+ like "hands' worth of effort" came about in the first place.
Why no assisted healing checks? Lol.
Maybe I am just too lenient, because "fantasy" game. I mean, I get that there are rules, and they exist for a reason.
And I do, actually, understand the concept of balancing play so everyone can have fun...
I just don't understand, and absolutely refuse to accept, that the act of balancing gameplay means taking away from those who have instead of giving more to those that have not.
Fighters used to suck, so they gave them AWT. See, that's how you balance stuff... didn't take anything away from anyone else.
How do we balance TWF with a Greatsword and Armor Spikes? Easy. Allow it. See what happens. Guess what, it's the exact same as everything else. There are optimal and sub-optimal choices everywhere, and people are free to play everything on the spectrum.
If Player A wants to be big Billy b@d@ss TWF'ing with a Greatsword and Armor Spikes, whilst Player B wants to TWF with a fork and spoon, it is in no way a fault of Player A's build or choices that they overshadow Player B in damage output. Nor is it the respinsibility of the GM to limit Player A's damage output to not overshadow Player B... screw Player B... they have made crappy choices and they get to live with them.
I don't nerf bows so crossbows suck less. I don't nerf 9th level casters so 4th level casters suck less. It's not my job to subtract from one player's fun just because some other player made piss-poor decisions. And even if they aren't piss-poor choices, maybe they are normal or standard choices... players need to understand that there is ALWAYS a better build out there.
You are not a special and unique snowflake. You are part of a team. It is not a competition within the team. It's not. Who cares if Player A does more damage than Player B? If Player B was that concerned with it, they would have made different choices.
Clearly a combination is OP if everyone chooses it over everything else. This is false. It is completely BS. People still play Rogues and Swashbucklers, on purpose... people make sub-optimal choices for flavor all the time. That doesn't mean you should nerf those that make optimal choices. Or at least as optimal as TWF can be, the whole concept is clownshoes. TWF is hardly optimal, ever, in my opinion.
How many people do you honestly have to ever worry about TWF with a 2H weapon and armor spikes? For a Greatsword, you will need to be Strength-based, obviously, but still have to have high enough Dex for TWF feats. Already less optimal than just focusing on Strength... will NEVER be as accurate or hit as hard as the stronger soldier swinging a Greatsword.
Oh, but Rangers... cool, one class (two w/Slayer)... not everyone wants to play those classes. What about Half-Elves/Elves and Elven 2H weapons? What about them? Not everyone wants to be an Elf. Elves still consider them Martial weapons, so it's not really helping UnRogues achieve anything special without a dip or spending a feat/Talent.
Point is, there is absolutely nothing about the argument that makes any sense at all. Every single way you approach it, "hands' worth of effort" is BS. And it doesn't help balance actual gameplay, at all. Capping Caster Levels at 20 is a way to balance overall gameplay, somewhat. Nerfing martials just makes the game less balanced, and even MORE biased towards casters. We don't need or want that.
So yes, natural attack it the F up! Multiple attacks from the same limb, all d@mn day!
--Because they can't be tripped, creatures without legs also can not be knocked prone
There's some possible merit to this one, but the others are in my opinion bad rulings.
I say some merit because it's probably not true is all cases, but I can think of cases where it is likely to be true.
Like snakes and oozes. Snakes are typically "prone" already presumably without penalty and so it makes sense (to me) they can't suffer from prone. But I don't think anything in the rules specifically states that they can't suffer from prone, but as a GM I'd probably rule that way.
Same for oozes, they're an amporphous blob. You can't trip them, and even if you had something else that cause the prone condition, to me the amorphous blob just schlorps around and goes back to doing what it was before.