| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The all-the-natural-weapons build is the one which inspires panic. The potential maximum damage can get quite high.
If you're doing the scout thing remember to make sure you can run when caught, and remember to actually run. Assuming that 30' move speed and a rank in climb is enough is the second from top cause of death among scouts, hanging in there until the party rescues you is the top cause.
IMO the usual optimization to natural attacks is to stack a lot of them, then improving damage per hit. So sticking with two claws is not optimized.
Still, I guess a slayer can make it through Carrion Crown with just two claws, given the high accuracy (studied target, full BAB attacks) and the scaling damage boosts. Haste will add a third attack sometimes, likely more often over the course of levels. Power Attack works pretty well for natural attacks, sometimes better than for two-handed. Natural attacks can be enhanced by an amulet of mighty fists - it's as expensive as upgrading two manufactured weapons, but competes with the natural armor amulet. IIRC a few alternatives exist, like the greater magic fang spell. Or the barkskin spell, if you want to engage the problem from the other side.
The Claw Pounce feat at level 10 should help a lot. As I read it, it works for natural claw attacks only, not for claw blades.
With all these tools, I'd switch focus to beef up slayer's defenses, especially the weak Will save. Dealing a lot of damage becomes detrimental once you are confused - or, worse, dominated...
Natural attack focused builds usually require many more than 2 natural attacks to be considered optimal.
Especially because you can make two weapon attacks at level 1 (though the natural attacks will have better chance to hit).
As you level up, unless you increase the number of natural attacks you have a natural attack focused build will fall behind significantly.
It is much easier to build a weapon focused build, even a two weapon fighter, IMO. Natural attack builds usually involve specific magic items to get certain kinds of natural attacks and playing things goat men so you can get claws, then multiclassing into something with sorcerer bloodlines for claw attacks, and then taking the magic item that gives you a gore attack, and then picking up the Orc toothy trait to get a bite attack.
And yeah, it can do some crazy damage.
But it's also the kind of thing that I personally hate to see.
Wait, since when is there a dedicated party role for Stealth/Sneak Attack? Stealth is a skill literally everyone can invest in, and Sneak Attack is just a steaming pile of $#!+, not a party role.
Scouting is important, but past the first couple levels it shouldn't be an actual member of the party doing the scouting. We have spells for that.
For the question at hand, I would probably go with Claw Blades... I think most natural attacks builds are completely bogus. I do really like my Changeling Eyebiter Mesmerist/Evangelist PrC natural attack build, though... more for flavor than effectiveness... a Tengu or Lizardfolk would probably be better, but Changeling she is. I, personally, don't like relying on natural attacks because of the plethora of defenses that affect the attacker when damage comes from natural attacks. Plus, Claw Blades!!! You have access to them, might as well let them see the table. Nobody ever uses Claw Blades.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, since when is there a dedicated party role for Stealth/Sneak Attack? Stealth is a skill literally everyone can invest in, and Sneak Attack is just a steaming pile of $#!+, not a party role.
Scouting is important, but past the first couple levels it shouldn't be an actual member of the party doing the scouting. We have spells for that.
Never discount a groups beliefs in party roles simply because their ideal party composition differs from yours. Not every group will have a wizard who’s got a spell for every possible situation... furthermore, not every campaign will allow for such a caster to be reliable... if you know your group will need someone who can scout ahead and deal with traps on a regular basis it is actually more practical to have a roguish character who has unlimited access to mundane methods of accomplishing that goal than a Spellcaster who might only be able to accomplish the task once or twice a day. It is just like the whole dedicated healer or no dedicated healer debate, while the roll might not be a “necessity” some groups find having one to be invaluable while others think of it as a waste of time. Is it the most optimal way of playing? Probably not, but it certainly isn’t the wrong way to play.
Scouting and traps, sure. Those are arguably roles that need filled. However, Stealth/Sneak Attack is not a role, and even if it was, it's not a role that ever NEEDS filled.
And I agree, having mundane means to deal with things makes a character much more reliable.
I actually like to invest in things like mundane healing... Healer's Hands/Incredible Healer/Psychic Sensitivity/Signature Skill... adds some depth to a Fighter, and Flickering Step/Dimensional Savant helps make the investment in Know:Planes pay off in combat.
Topically, Claw Blades are terrible. There’s a good argument to use weapons instead of natural attacks, but even there i wouldn’t consider claw blades unless you happened to be a monk (the FCB is noteworthy).
Two Weapon Fighting is generally weak, but if you did want to go that way i’d recommend either handwraps (weapon enhancements applies to both hands; could also RP these as Claw Blades but less bad), or kukris (crit), or big 1-handers with Effortless Lace (Falcata, Bastard Sword, etc).
A good way to utilize claw blades is to pick up one clawblade when your BAB reaches +6/+1 to take advantage of iterative attacks, this turns your offhand claw into a secondary weapon that puts you at +5/+1/+1 on attacks... don’t worry about TWF or a second clawblade unless you have the spare feats to invest in it, and even then it is only really worth it if you can get improved TWF immediately... without TWF you can still get the extra secondary claw attack on top of a full set of iterative attacks.
In that logic, i would recommend using a 1 handed weapon (that you could two-hand when you were limited to standard action attack), and you could +6/+1/+1 with falcata/falcata/natural attack claw for better damage/crit etc both in standard action attacks and full attacks.
If they take any of the catfolk claw attack feats, it is worth noting that clawblades are still explicitly considered attacking with your claws... which does infact mean they can be used with claw pounce and their damage is based on the damage of your claws themselves... so improving your base claw damage does improve the clawblades (the stat block from the book does NOT include damage, the SRD stat blocks just include base catfolk claw damage for simplicity)
In that logic, i would recommend using a 1 handed weapon (that you could two-hand when you were limited to standard action attack), and you could +6/+1/+1 with falcata/falcata/natural attack claw for better damage/crit etc both in standard action attacks and full attacks.
Do the rules allow for using a 2-handed weapon, and then also using a natural attack, in the same way you would a 1-handed weapon and a natural attack? I ask because I recall the FAQ that states that taking one hand on and off of a 2-handed weapon is a free action, as this is what allows a wizard wielding a quarterstaff to cast spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In that logic, i would recommend using a 1 handed weapon (that you could two-hand when you were limited to standard action attack), and you could +6/+1/+1 with falcata/falcata/natural attack claw for better damage/crit etc both in standard action attacks and full attacks.Do the rules allow for using a 2-handed weapon, and then also using a natural attack, in the same way you would a 1-handed weapon and a natural attack? I ask because I recall the FAQ that states that taking one hand on and off of a 2-handed weapon is a free action, as this is what allows a wizard wielding a quarterstaff to cast spells.
Technically yes and no... to elaborate the rules about removing a hand as a free action would permit it, but at the same time a different rule actually prevents it... the same rule that says you can’t attack with a two-handed weapon and armor spikes using two-weapon fighting... the full rules on it are actually one of the worst messes of contradictory rules and endless logic loops in all of pathfinder... somehow attacking with an unarmed strike using kicks and then following up with a full round of natural attacks including two claws is permitted, but using a two-handed weapon and then free action removing one hand to claw attack is not... nor is using a two-handed weapon and two-weapon fighting with armor spikes or an unarmed strike... it is a completely illogical mess...
Heh. Sounds like it. Thanks for the clarification.
The "hands' worth of effort" BS is something that used to really boil my blood. It still doesn't make any sense to me, I just don't get as worked up over it as I used to. It is a mess... such a mess, in fact, that near everyone just accepts it as not allowed just to avoid arguing about it.
Because there actually isn't any rules outlining exactly what a "hands' worth of effort" is. It is just some BS buried back in long lost designer commentary on message boards. To my knowledge, there is literally nothing officially RAW stopping you from legally TWF with a Greatsword and Armor Spikes.
But oh boy, what a can of worms that can be. So, it's just not allowed. And Chell Raighn probably explained that entire storm in the nicest way possible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do the rules allow for using a 2-handed weapon, and then also using a natural attack, in the same way you would a 1-handed weapon and a natural attack?
No, and it has absolutey nothing to do with the Armor Spike FAQ. The actual relevant rule is this:
"" (CRB pg. 182) If you have already used a limb on one type of attack (one type is 'manufactured/unarmed', the other typ is 'natural'), you can't use it on the other type in the same turn (or at least the same full-attack action).
a different rule actually prevents it... the same rule that says you can’t attack with a two-handed weapon and armor spikes using two-weapon fighting...
Nope, the Armor Spike FAQ is only about off-hand attacks, and natural weapons don't use that system at all. That FAQ has absolutely no effect ever on natural attacks.
the full rules on it are actually one of the worst messes of contradictory rules and endless logic loops in all of pathfinder
It's actually fairly easy to understand, people just get too hung up on "how dare they change something I like" to even try to. The mainhand+offhand system works just like the standard+move action system that we all understand and accept - if you for use your move action, either seperately (e.g. starting a bardic performance at lvl 7+), or combined with the standard action (any full-round action), you can't move that turn. The off-hand works exactly the same, if you use it on a different off-hand attack, e.g. from armor spikes, or combined with the main-hand attack, i.e. by using a two-handed weapon, you can't use it that turn.
Sure, it's a game mechanic thing, not something realistic. So is that a full-attack action can be ten attacks with the same manufactured weapon, but when spanding less than half the turn moving, you can suddenly only make one rather than, say, five as you might expect.
It's not more an oddity as anything else about the turn-based system. Indeed, the real oddity is in the disconnection between the manufactured attacks system (with main- and offhand), and the natural attacks system.
By the way, that wielding a two-handed weapon uses the off-hand is mentioned in the CRB (just not where it should be), so the FAQ does actually make a ruling based on the CRB and doesn't invent something altogether.
A mammoth helm gives a gore attack at a cost of 8500 gp IIRC. It might not fit your style (though no undead are involved).
How well would monk lend itself to this build?
What build? Do you mean character concept? Because I don't see anything resembling a build.
I think you should start a proper building process. So, what do you actually want? So far, the information we have is "melee, can stealth, uses claws or clawblade". Which is something that can be done with over 30 classes in the game. Tell us more about what mechanics you want for your character, and what mechanics you want to avoid*, your stance on multiclassing, and what material is allowed.
*) For example spell-like stuff (spells, alchemy, + SLAs), explicit spellcasting, magical class features, multiclassing, medium+ armor, heavy armor, or polymorphing.
You haven't really answered my questions. Anyone can flank. Anyone can be a frontliner. There're 16 classes in the game without spells. You say you your "baseline" is Slayer, but you haven't told us what you want from the class, or what you consider a "baseline". It could mean that you're dead set on the first level being Slayer. It could mean that you want 10 levels because you love the idea of those prereq-free feats. It could mean that you aren't actually set on a class and just presumed Slayer was the best option.
And without knowing that, we cannot actually say what "barbarian levels, prestige classes etc.""make any of these more fun". And naturally what kind of multiclassing etc. you'd be fine with strongly affects how the different paths compare.
Basically, you ask for "more fun and engaging", but don't tell us what you consider fun or engaging.
Re monks, not really useful especially with those ability scores.
You could pick up more natural attacks with 1-2 levels dipped in any one of several classes - druid (look at the ___ shaman archetypes), barbarian, witch (espec. white-haired), shifter (espec. adaptive) and of course the synthesist summoner. Probably more that I can't think of right this minute.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, given that we JUST completed a campaign where I played a two weapon fighter, I'm keen to avoid two weapon fighting.
So you just completed a campaign where you used multiple low dmg attacks in melee that required you to chase full-attacks from an early level to deal competitive damage.
To be honest, that sounds like it has a lot of overlap with both of your proposed builds. Claw Blades is just going to lead you into the TWF feat tree, and stacking natural attacks is essentially the same playstyle.
I'd go for a quality build if you're looking for something different. Start out with Str 14/Dex 18, and pick up a finessable two-hander. One level of Warrior Poet Samurai is a good place to start your character.
Also, given that we JUST completed a campaign where I played a two weapon fighter, I'm keen to avoid two weapon fighting.So you just completed a campaign where you used multiple low dmg attacks in melee that required you to chase full-attacks from an early level to deal competitive damage.
To be honest, that sounds like it has a lot of overlap with both of your proposed builds. Claw Blades is just going to lead you into the TWF feat tree, and stacking natural attacks is essentially the same playstyle.
I'd go for a quality build if you're looking for something different. Start out with Str 14/Dex 18, and pick up a finessable two-hander. One level of Warrior Poet Samurai is a good place to start your character.
Agreed, although the rules for how natural attacks and two weapon fighting work are very different, they play basically the same at the table. You're trying to stand still and full attack the enemy, and if you have to move you take an incredible hit to your damage output.
This is still somewhat true for two-handed users, but less so (especially at low levels). A two-handed weapon user experiences no reduction in effectiveness when moving until level 6, when they would gain an iterative attack. There are also methods of getting extra attacks even when moving (such as reach weapons, cornugon smash + hurtful) which work better with a two-handed attack style.
Also, what's a good argument I can use to vouch FOR vital strike. since I'll be using a twohander (elven curveblade)
I'm not sure what do you mean by vouching for Vital Strike, but the feat has it's strength, it's just not what most people would like it to do; Replace Iterative attack, work with charge Build and Spring Attack Build.
Vital Strike is great :
- When you can increase your weapon attack dice ; Lead Blades, Enlarge Person/Animal, Strong Jaw, etc.
- When you can't full-round attack, don't have access to pounce, but are within move action range of an enemy.
-When an enemy have too much AC that your iterative attacks become useless to attempt.
As i'm guessing a character with an elven curve blade is probably built for finesse, enlarge person might not be super useful with the huge penalty to hit, lead blades, if you can afford to get the spell, would be pretty good with an elven curve blade, raising your damage from 1d10 to 2d8, so 4d8 with vital strike. If you're a strength build with the curved blade, then you can enlarge yourself you can raise to 3d8 with both spell and hit for 6d8 with vital strike.
That being said, Vital strike will probably never beat out power-attack and multiple attack without an incredibly specialized druid build focusing on big natural weapon attack.
Issue has been resolved, I am going with eldritch poisoner
I'll have to pick up celestial poisons to deal with more problematic enemies however.Also, what's a good argument I can use to vouch FOR vital strike. since I'll be using a twohander (elven curveblade)
Hopefully your DM is ignoring this line in Arcanotoxin for you…
Alchemist discoveries that affect mundane poisons do not apply to an arcanotoxin.
Because by RAW Eldritch poisoner can’t use the celestial poison or elemental destabilizer discoveries for their arcanotoxin… nor can they use literally any of the other normal alchemist poison discoveries…