A bite attack is certainly fine.
Using a general 'fist' unarmed attack is fine because as you mentioned, that unarmed attack covers using other body parts too.
Using a claw is questionable and up to GM adjudication. You need to have a hand free in order to start a grapple. You also need a hand free in order to make a Strike with that hand. Nothing actually says that having an active grapple means that you are holding something (namely, that grappled enemy) in your hand - but it does make narrative sense.
A similar idea that I am more familiar with is a Gymnast Swashbuckler using Dueling Parry. Does grappling an enemy mean that the one free hand is no longer actually free since it is holding an enemy and therefore I am not able to use Dueling Parry?
Since the rules for grapple don't clearly say that holding an enemy occupies your hand, if you want to argue the case to your GM, you are on pretty solid footing for it.
But there is a reasonable case that it doesn't work too. The grapple rules do have a note that you can maintain a grapple against an opponent that you are already grappling without needing a free hand. Which implies that the hand that you used to start the grapple is no longer free since it is now holding that enemy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bite yes, claw no.
from player core
"All shields, unless specifically noted or described otherwise, must be strapped to your arm and held in one hand, so you can’t hold anything with that hand and Raise a Shield, and you lose the shield’s benefits if that hand is no longer free."
GRAPPLE [one-action]
ATTACK
Requirements: "You have at least one free hand and your target is no more than one size larger than you."
"You attempt to grab a creature or object with your free hand."
So you have 2 hands, 1 hand is holding the shield and one is grappling leaving 0 hands to claw.
Bite yes, claw no.
from player core
"All shields, unless specifically noted or described otherwise, must be strapped to your arm and held in one hand, so you can’t hold anything with that hand and Raise a Shield, and you lose the shield’s benefits if that hand is no longer free."GRAPPLE [one-action]
ATTACK
Requirements: "You have at least one free hand and your target is no more than one size larger than you."
"You attempt to grab a creature or object with your free hand."So you have 2 hands, 1 hand is holding the shield and one is grappling leaving 0 hands to claw.
Bears have 4 claws. Even humans are alowed to kick and head butt.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bears have 4 claws. Even humans are alowed to kick and head butt.
They tend to call feet talons and hands claws [every foot attack I could find was feet, talon or hoof]. As such, my answer stays the same. Now they could of course make a generic fist attack [1d4] and call it whatever they want and use their foot to do it too, it just doesn't get the claw damage [1d6]. I also wouldn't allow an ape barbarian to kick and use fist damage either.
Now of course, his dm can allow bear and cat to just have more options that other animal barbarians but IMO it's not the base assumption.
Bears have 4 claws. Even humans are alowed to kick and head butt.They tend to call feet talons and hands claws [every foot attack I could find was feet, talon or hoof]. As such, my answer stays the same. Now they could of course make a generic fist attack [1d4] and call it whatever they want and use their foot to do it too, it just doesn't get the claw damage [1d6]. I also wouldn't allow an ape barbarian to kick and use fist damage either.
Now of course, his dm can allow bear and cat to just have more options that other animal barbarians but IMO it's not the base assumption.
You are reading something in which is not there.
Most heritages don't distinguish the limbs. It is the bird like types that use the term talon. Which is fair enough, it is a more specific word.
However Kitsune and some Nagaji both explicitly state that they have claws on their hands and their feet.
Further Fist is clearly referring other body parts. It is also explicitly Unarmed which means it doesn't use a hand at all.You can bite, kick, body slam, headbutt, talon strike or foot claw with your hands full.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fist is explicitly defined as being the default for attacking with any unspecified body part.
The Morph trait very clearly says that it applies to a specific body part.
The Barbarian Animial Instinct Bestial Rage instinct ability has the Morph trait. So it applies to a specific body part. If you make an unarmed strike with a different body part, then you are using the Fist attack, not the Bear Claw attack.
Fist is explicitly defined as being the default for attacking with any unspecified body part.
Yes and one of the animal barbarian forms (ape) lists Fist as its attack
The Morph trait very clearly says that it applies to a specific body part.
No, it doesn't say that. It says nothing can be morphed twice. It could clearly apply to two hands or two claws or four claws.
The Barbarian Animial Instinct Bestial Rage instinct ability has the Morph trait. So it applies to a specific body part. If you make an unarmed strike with a different body part, then you are using the Fist attack, not the Bear Claw attack.
Ape uses Fist. Bear and Cat use Claw. That is not to say that a regular Fist attack can't be used by a Bear or a Shark or anything else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most heritages don't distinguish the limbs. It is the bird like types that use the term talon. Which is fair enough, it is a more specific word.
That isn't turn. They do use it for birds but also bats, demons, dinos, dragons, undead and others mention non-attack talons.
However Kitsune and some Nagaji both explicitly state that they have claws on their hands and their feet.
So? The mention claws, not Claws. Similarly, a mention of jaws doesn't mean a Jaw attack.
Further Fist is clearly referring other body parts. It is also explicitly Unarmed which means it doesn't use a hand at all.You can bite, kick, body slam, headbutt, talon strike or foot claw with your hands full.
Ok, i said as much: the difference is that the statistics don't change no matter what you want to call it, so it uses the fist stats by default.
"Table 6–6: Unarmed Attacks lists the statistics for an unarmed attack with a fist, though you’ll usually use the same statistics for attacks made with any other parts of your body." This means it's dm fiat if a 'claw' attack deals damage other that B or has a damage dice other than 1d4 since it isn't a Claw attack with it's own stats but a Fist attack.
Fist is explicitly defined as being the default for attacking with any unspecified body part.Yes and one of the animal barbarian forms (ape) lists Fist as its attack
What it sounds like you are arguing is that any unarmed attack that a character gains will upgrade the Fist attack. And I don't think that is right.
A Sacred Nagaji still punches for 1d4 nonlethal. They don't get to have their Fist attack do 1d6 lethal damage - especially not while also keeping the agile trait.
A Fist attack is a Fist attack.
A Nagaji tail attack is a separate attack.
A Bear Totem Barbarian's Claw attack is also a separate attack - and one made with the characters hands since that is the narrative description.
A GM can certainly rule that the Barbarian character can make Bear Claw attacks with their feet, but don't go into a game assuming and expecting that this is the ruling.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A bite attack is certainly fine.
Using a general 'fist' unarmed attack is fine because as you mentioned, that unarmed attack covers using other body parts too.
Using a claw is questionable and up to GM adjudication. You need to have a hand free in order to start a grapple. You also need a hand free in order to make a Strike with that hand.
This is not technically true. The Unarmed trait says it doesn't take up a hand
This is purely an area of common sense rules interpretation. Which I am OK with.What I am not OK with is your insistance that Claw is necessarily on the end of a Hand. The majority of quadruped creatures with claws have 4 claws. We are typically talking about cats, bear, dogs. Very common animals. The pictures of several ancestries also clearly have 4 claws. 4 claws are mentioned in 2 ancestries. Further the base example of Fist even though it says one handed also has the Unarmed trait which means doesn't have to be a hand, also explcilty includes kicks. I have yet to see a GM insist that a kick requires a free hand.
Then there is real life to consider. Lots of animals especially when they are grappling use their rear claws to attack.
In summary use some common sense.
Nothing actually says that having an active grapple means that you are holding something (namely, that grappled enemy) in your hand - but it does make narrative sense.
A similar idea that I am more familiar with is a Gymnast Swashbuckler using Dueling Parry. Does grappling an enemy mean that the one free hand is no longer actually free since it is holding an enemy and therefore I am not able to use Dueling Parry?
Since the rules for grapple don't clearly say that holding an enemy occupies your hand, if you want to argue the case to your GM, you are on pretty solid footing for it.
Maintaining a grapple doesn't take a hand. It is pretty clear. It stops when you move, they escape, or the end of your next turn. You can even regrapple them without a free hand while they are still grabbed.
Maybe you are just leaning on them.
Most heritages don't distinguish the limbs. It is the bird like types that use the term talon. Which is fair enough, it is a more specific word.That isn't turn. They do use it for birds but also bats, demons, dinos, dragons, undead and others mention non-attack talons.
However Kitsune and some Nagaji both explicitly state that they have claws on their hands and their feet.So? The mention claws, not Claws. Similarly, a mention of jaws doesn't mean a Jaw attack.
It does actually. Just that you would use the numbers for Fist in absence of anything else.
Further Fist is clearly referring other body parts. It is also explicitly Unarmed which means it doesn't use a hand at all.You can bite, kick, body slam, headbutt, talon strike or foot claw with your hands full.Ok, i said as much: the difference is that the statistics don't change no matter what you want to call it, so it uses the fist stats by default.
"Table 6–6: Unarmed Attacks lists the statistics for an unarmed attack with a fist, though you’ll usually use the same statistics for attacks made with any other parts of your body." This means it's dm fiat if a 'claw' attack deals damage other that B or has a damage dice other than 1d4 since it isn't a Claw attack with it's own stats but a Fist attack.
So if a Claw attack is listed it is all clear I can use it with the provided statistics. Equating hands with claws is your preconception. It is not in the game. It is not part of the real world either. Lots of animals will fight with their rear claws if the opportunity arises.
Equating hands with claws is your preconception.
Not really. It goes back to a PF1 ruling that claws don't go on feet and that they'd be talons then seeing a similar pattern in PF2. IMO, i think you can, for instance, get 2 different claws and say 1 goes on your feet because of this: for instance, a lizardfolk changeling taking slag may would have "a claw unarmed attack that deals 1d6 slashing damage. Your claws are in the brawling group, have the unarmed and grapple traits, and are cold iron" from slag may and "a claw unarmed attack that deals 1d4 slashing damage and has the agile and finesse traits": think you have to pick one. This is one reason i think feet attacks are specified: Form of the Fiend, for instance says "Part of your body has an obvious, fiendish appearance. Your hands end in razor-sharp claws, you have hooves instead of feet, sharp teeth fill your mouth, or a whipping tail extends from your spine."
So for myself, unless they specifically let us know claws attacks are for all your limbs, I'm assuming not.
Lots of animals will fight with their rear claws if the opportunity arises.
sure but would they have the same stats?: for instance, you have a bear that's standing up in front of you... do you really expect me to believe that it could claw me with it's back leg as well as a swipe with it's claws? I'm not buying the 'but irl' argument there.
Here is another example the Water Wraith animal companion it has 8 claws with a listed claw attack.
Lots of animals will fight with their rear claws if the opportunity arises.sure but would they have the same stats?: for instance, you have a bear that's standing up in front of you... do you really expect me to believe that it could claw me with it's back leg as well as a swipe with it's claws? I'm not buying the 'but irl' argument there.
The animal is going to be facing towards you, so naturally it will be using its forward limbs, or upper limbs if it is bipedal. But if they are grappling or on the ground or are somehow their forelimbs don't work then yes. I mean even horse will kick and they don't have anywhere the flexibility of a badger or a bear.
Then there are things like pounce and rake maneuvers. Do I need to dig up vids on animal fights? It is distasteful. Rear claw attacks aren't a first choice but they do happen.
IRL is relevant when GM judgement comes into play and you clearly don't have a leg to stand on.
But we also have to consider intelligent humanoids some sort of martial arts claw rake with a rear foot is possible.
The OP question here was an Animal Barbarian with a Shield.
Clearly you don't need a free hand to maintain a grapple so using a Claw attack is fine.
If both hands were full, maybe he is wearing two shields, then he clearly can still bite. I'm perfectly happy if he want to use the claws on his feet as well.