Clawdancer dedication requires a "permanent unarmed claw or talon attack" to use and gives you 2 stances, one to use the claws on your hands and one to use the ones on your feet.
My question is: is it assumed that you can use both stances even though you may not have one set of claws/talons? For instance, a merfolk slagmay has hand claws but doesn't have legs, let alone claws/talons. Or a Predator Strix with only Talons on their legs. I'm fine it both works, but the visuals of a merfolk 'clawing' and leaping around with a bid fish tail.
I 100% had this same confusion when I read it too.
The way I read it is that the stances work like Monk Stances. Compare-
Mountain Stance: "The only Strikes you can make are falling stone unarmed attacks."
Claw Stance: "The only Strikes you can make are frenzied claw unarmed attacks."
The Stance doesn't give you a claw unarmed attack, nor does it require it. You don't do claw Strikes, you do frenzied claw Strikes. Just like Mountain Stance doesn't give you falling stones, that is the technique name of attack you do.
Kelseus wrote: The Stance doesn't give you a claw unarmed attack, nor does it require it. That's what it seems, but I find it confusing to require a claw and/or talon attack if it's ultimately pointless/useless/redundant for every feat in the archetype. It's why I posted, in case i missed something.
Long live merfolk, sacred nagaji, centaur, minotaur spinning talon strikes! ;)
graystone wrote: Kelseus wrote: The Stance doesn't give you a claw unarmed attack, nor does it require it. That's what it seems, but I find it confusing to require a claw and/or talon attack if it's ultimately pointless/useless/redundant for every feat in the archetype. It's why I posted, in case i missed something.
Long live merfolk, sacred nagaji, centaur, minotaur spinning talon strikes! ;) Oh, I totally get where you are coming from. I was reading the same way. It wasn't until I got to the feat that lets you swap stances that I realized my mistake.
About the wheeling grab :
Quote: If you moved through an ennemy's space, you can Grapple it. Automatically Grapple ?
Or is there an Athletic check to do ?
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I think this is usage like Strike. Using the capitalized "Grapple" means they are referring to the Grapple action, which means you need to roll a check.
Also TGTBT otherwise. No one gets an auto-grapple at level 6.
The intention feels like this was meant for catfolk, were tigers, and other ancestries with claws on their feet and hands. There are few ways to mechanically get a claw unarmed attack on your feat, and probably fewer still worth getting when you already have hand claws. But flavorwise I think it's pretty easy to sniff test whether this archetype makes sense for any given PC.
Functionally, it's creating a viable option for people who want to lean into their ancestral unarmed attacks instead of being strictly inferior to monk stances or animal barbarians. It does a pretty good job, from my perspective. It's an archetype you want to fully commit to-- you can spend most of your class feats AND free archetype feats and still have options left, at least before level 10.
The art in the book is a catfolk doing capooera, which is absolutely what the feats evoke.
I don't see where the confusion is coming from:
Quote: You've practiced the art of fighting with your natural clawsyou gain the following two actions which lets you assume specific stances to strike more effectively with your claws the stances clearly refer to attacks made with your natural claws/talons.
Even the actual stance descriptions say that they are made with your natural claws/talons:
Quote: you extend the claws in your hands Quote: sweep with the claws on your feet for the claw and talon stance respectively.
If your ancestry does not have claws/talons, then you actually lack the capability of doing said respective Strikes (and you should probably focus on the feats that apply on the feature your ancestry has instead of the feats that require both)
---
or to use the example of the merfolk used in this thread, you don't have claws on your feet, you don't even have feet! so tyou cannot do spining talon strikes" which require them and are the only Strikes you can do while in Talon Stance.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Isn't the whole point of the archetype to swap between both attack forms in really cool ways? Does the archetype even work if the GM rules that you need both, but don't have both?
I suspect it's not that limiting. If you have claws at all, then the archetype gives you the appropriate strikes as part of the stances.
I can't imagine a creature capable of growing claws from their hands not being able to do so with their feet. Even a merfolk could have spines along their tail that would suffice.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
shroudb wrote: I don't see where the confusion is coming from: Mainly that you aren't attacking with your claws/talons but with stance attacks that don't require them for use.
For instance, lets go back to a Slag May: "You have thick, sturdy claws made of cold iron that grow naturally from your body. You gain 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." your stance attacks aren't cold iron for instance because it isn't a Slag May claw attack but a frenzied claw attack.
Similarly, a Breaker Surki can't use magical, razing and/or versatile B/force from their natural claw attacks with their frenzied claw attack.
Bottom line, if the archetype is really meant to require claws/talons on both your feet and hands, the requirements should reflect that. If we are forced to use the flavor text in the first sentence as rule text, then we're left with things like disallowing someone in Gorilla Stance from having anything in their hands since the stance says you "take an imposing, knuckle-walking stance", even though NOTHING in the requirements states that. Or the names of feats themselves, like making Flying Kick REQUIRE a kick. Or a Sleeper Hold require a neck choke.
If it does have such requirements, I don't think it's asking too much to have every requirement in the section of the feat that list those requirements and not have them to be inferred from other text.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
graystone wrote: shroudb wrote: I don't see where the confusion is coming from: Mainly that you aren't attacking with your claws/talons but with stance attacks that don't require them for use.
For instance, lets go back to a Slag May: "You have thick, sturdy claws made of cold iron that grow naturally from your body. You gain 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." your stance attacks aren't cold iron for instance because it isn't a Slag May claw attack but a frenzied claw attack.
Similarly, a Breaker Surki can't use magical, razing and/or versatile B/force from their natural claw attacks with their frenzied claw attack.
Bottom line, if the archetype is really meant to require claws/talons on both your feet and hands, the requirements should reflect that. If we are forced to use the flavor text in the first sentence as rule text, then we're left with things like disallowing someone in Gorilla Stance from having anything in their hands since the stance says you "take an imposing, knuckle-walking stance", even though NOTHING in the requirements states that. Or the names of feats themselves, like making Flying Kick REQUIRE a kick. Or a Sleeper Hold require a neck choke.
If it does have such requirements, I don't think it's asking too much to have every requirement in the section of the feat that list those requirements and not have them to be inferred from other text.
Why do you think that you don't attack with said claws/talons when in the respective stance?
Each stance clearly says that you attack with claws/talons depending on the stance in the first sentence of the stance.
"sweep with the claws on your feet" for the Talon stance and "extend the claws in your hands" for the Claw stance.
Attacks gaining/losing traits when used differently isnt something new (see monk unarmed punches that are not agile or not finesse as an example), but you still use said body part for the attack. And in the case of Talon/Claw stance the part used is the Talons/Claws. If you don't have them, you can't use them imo as written.
Ravingdork wrote:
I can't imagine a creature capable of growing claws from their hands not being able to do so with their feet. Even a merfolk could have spines along their tail that would suffice. And that would be a fine houserule for a GM that wants to allow said feats for an ancestry without talons. But RAW, the Stances do say that the attack is being done with talons/claws, so if you don't have those, I don't see how you can do the attack.
Ravingdork wrote: Isn't the whole point of the archetype to swap between both attack forms in really cool ways? Does the archetype even work if the GM rules that you need both, but don't have both?
There are enough feats in the archetype to build either Claw or Talon. No need to venture in the switching part of the archetype for it to be effective.
Imo the purpose of the archetype is more broad, to encompass either/or playstyle depending on what you have. And if you ahppen to have both, you get a few extra choices.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
shroudb wrote: Why do you think that you don't attack with said claws/talons when in the respective stance? Because you aren't using the traits of that unarmed attack. If i have cold iron claws and a stance attack isn't cold iron, you aren't attacking with the claw. Secondly, both stances state the only Strikes you can make are frenzied claw/spinning talon unarmed attacks. unarmed attacks. Thery literally tell you that you aren't attacking with your ancestry unarmed attack. Again, if your ancestry unarmed attack do cold iron or force, your stance attack is unchanged because they aren't the same unarmed attack. Or take a catfolk with Aggravating Scratch: you don't add extra damage on a claw crit because you aren't making a claw attack but a specific attack granted from a stance.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Conceptually you are definitely using your natural attacks. However, mechanically, you are clearly using the stance rules, and not your normal natural attack rules, for the stance attacks. So yeah, no cold iron for your hag claws, at least not when in these stances.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
It is nonsensical.
If it is themed on using the claws you already have it should not have provided an unarmed attack of its own. Instead it should have added a trait or two to represent a benefit of using your claws in this stance.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
graystone wrote: shroudb wrote: Why do you think that you don't attack with said claws/talons when in the respective stance? A) Because you aren't using the traits of that unarmed attack. If i have cold iron claws and a stance attack isn't cold iron, you aren't attacking with the claw. Secondly, both stances state the only Strikes you can make are frenzied claw/spinning talon unarmed attacks. unarmed attacks. B)Thery literally tell you that you aren't attacking with your ancestry unarmed attack. Again, if your ancestry unarmed attack do cold iron or force, your stance attack is unchanged because they aren't the same unarmed attack. Or take a catfolk with Aggravating Scratch: you don't add extra damage on a claw crit because you aren't making a claw attack but a specific attack granted from a stance. a)so... when you are doing Gorilla punch you aren't using your hands because it's not finesse and agile?
b)they literally do.
in the first sentence of the stances and in the first sentence of the dedication feat.
Naming a claw attack "wild flying spinning slashing clawing" doesn't make it any less of a claw attack.
As written, you literally attack with the claws/talons of your ancestry in different ways than simply slashing with those.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
graystone wrote: For instance, lets go back to a Slag May: "You have thick, sturdy claws made of cold iron that grow naturally from your body. You gain 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." your stance attacks aren't cold iron for instance because it isn't a Slag May claw attack but a frenzied claw attack.
Do you remove precious materials' effects from special feat attacks? Or weapon stances?
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Errenor wrote: graystone wrote: For instance, lets go back to a Slag May: "You have thick, sturdy claws made of cold iron that grow naturally from your body. You gain 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." your stance attacks aren't cold iron for instance because it isn't a Slag May claw attack but a frenzied claw attack.
Do you remove precious materials' effects from special feat attacks? Or weapon stances? Interesting point!
In my case I would not; not unless the feat attack or weapon stance described an entirely different mechanical attack that it then limited the character to.
This archetype is a bit if an odd duck, isn't it?
Ravingdork wrote: Errenor wrote: graystone wrote: For instance, lets go back to a Slag May: "You have thick, sturdy claws made of cold iron that grow naturally from your body. You gain 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." your stance attacks aren't cold iron for instance because it isn't a Slag May claw attack but a frenzied claw attack.
Do you remove precious materials' effects from special feat attacks? Or weapon stances? Interesting point!
In my case I would not; not unless the feat attack or weapon stance described an entirely different mechanical attack that it then limited the character to.
This archetype is a bit if an odd duck, isn't it? But does it really remove the trait?
Let's see:
Slug May:
Quote: You have thick, sturdy claws made of cold iron that grow naturally from your body How does that differ from saying "you have a longsword made of cold iron"?
Sudden Charge doesn't have the Cold Iron trait, it only gains it because your longsword is made out of cold iron.
So, why wouldn't an unarmed attack made with a Cold Iron body part function exactly the same, giving the trait to the attack?
Let's take a look at monk:
Metal Strikes:
Quote: Your unarmed attacks are treated as cold iron and silver. Doesn't this add the trait to the attack? Why is this treated differently than:
Quote: You have thick, sturdy claws made of cold iron that grow naturally from your body ?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
shroudb wrote: Sudden Charge doesn't have the Cold Iron trait, it only gains it because your longsword is made out of cold iron.
So, why wouldn't an unarmed attack made with a Cold Iron body part function exactly the same, giving the trait to the attack?
Minor correction though, there are no precious materials traits (apart from 'precious' for crafting and so on) for attacks, strikes, damage. There's no 'Cold Iron' trait. They are traits without Traits and are tracked on the spot or in addition.
Not that it really matters in this case. Maybe it makes it even easier as we don't have to deal with trait inheritance/non-inheritance rules.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
shroudb wrote:
But does it really remove the trait?
Let's see:
Slug May:
Quote: You have thick, sturdy claws made of cold iron that grow naturally from your body How does that differ from saying "you have a longsword made of cold iron"?
Sudden Charge doesn't have the Cold Iron trait, it only gains it because your longsword is made out of cold iron.
So, why wouldn't an unarmed attack made with a Cold Iron body part function exactly the same, giving the trait to the attack?
I think the issue with your example is the difference in wording. For sudden charge, it actually doesn't modify the strike. In fact, it says you make a melee Strike as part of the maneuver, but doesn't impact the rules of that strike. It's just a way of doing 3 actions for the price of 2.
Quote: If you end your movement within melee reach of at least one enemy, you can make a melee Strike against that enemy Meanwhile, the stances are about the strike themselves, with rules about the kind of attack. They give "frenzied claw unarmed attacks" and "spinning talon unarmed attacks", which implies it may be the case that they are different from "claw unarmed attacks" *edit- fixed word order* without the frenzied name modifier. It at least could use clarification. Looking at weapons, a War Flail is not a Flail, so a Daikitsu war cleric can't use a war flail as a favored weapon.
shroudb wrote:
Let's take a look at monk:
Metal Strikes:
Quote: Your unarmed attacks are treated as cold iron and silver. Doesn't this add the trait to the attack? Why is this treated differently than:
Quote: You have thick, sturdy claws made of cold iron that grow naturally from your body ?
The difference between these is the wording. The Monk specifically adds those traits to unarmed attacks (which would be the case for "claw unarmed attacks" of, say, the Slag May, as well as the "Frenzied claw unarmed attacks" and "spinning talon unarmed attacks" of the clawdancer. Meanwhile, that is a flavor descriptor, while the rule is "You gain a claw unarmed attack." I can see both reasonings, but one is more explicit of adding it to all unarmed attacks vs the other where it may just be this attack. After looking over the Catfolk Aggravating Claws wording, I'm leaning a bit more towards your end, at least for claw attacks. So long as everyone is on the same page of a "frenzied" is just flavor text. Otherwise, it feels like it needs clarification of the context.
On a side note, I'd like it to work, but I'm curious how the conversation will go with my local GM's with the rules interpretation.
GreenKnight91 wrote: The difference between these is the wording. The Monk specifically adds those traits to unarmed attacks (which would be the case for "claw unarmed attacks" of, say, the Slag May, as well as the "Frenzied claw unarmed attacks" and "spinning talon unarmed attacks" of the clawdancer. Meanwhile, that is a flavor descriptor, while the rule is "You gain a claw unarmed attack." "Specifically" Metal Strikes doesn't even mention traits, let alone adding to them.
Plus, since when is "X made out of cold iron" a "flavour text"?
When you tell your players they find a "sword made out of cold iron" is that also just flavour?
That's absurd.(let alone the fact that pf2 specifically got rid of the split of flavour/rule and instead uses natural language).
By your definition, Metal Strikes doesn't do anything and is purely flavour text, since it makes no mention of traits at all.
How come "counts as" is stronger than "is made out of" in your reading lol?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
shroudb wrote:
By your definition, Metal Strikes doesn't do anything and is purely flavour text, since it makes no mention of traits at all.
How come "counts as" is stronger than "is made out of" in your reading lol?
I'm not saying that Metal Strikes does nothing. It specifically defines that "unarmed attacks" are "TREATED" as those metals. Similar to Metal-Veined Strike.
A bit of my reasoning comes from watching the conversations around whether or not the traits of Slag May and Hag Claws apply together. They are both claw attacks. However, the consensus is that no, you have to pick which claw attack you are doing. Your Slag May won't have agile from Hag Claws, and your Hag Claws won't have grapple from Slag May. And for some reason, the community also says that means Hag Claws are not cold iron from Slag May, but they would be from Metal Strikes or Metal-Veined Strike.
Feel free to direct me to resources to refute that, as I'd love to do a very animal like iron hag build, even before I knew about Clawdancer.
GreenKnight91 wrote: shroudb wrote:
By your definition, Metal Strikes doesn't do anything and is purely flavour text, since it makes no mention of traits at all.
How come "counts as" is stronger than "is made out of" in your reading lol?
I'm not saying that Metal Strikes does nothing. It specifically defines that "unarmed attacks" are "TREATED" as those metals. Similar to Metal-Veined Strike.
A bit of my reasoning comes from watching the conversations around whether or not the traits of Slag May and Hag Claws apply together. They are both claw attacks. However, the consensus is that no, you have to pick which claw attack you are doing. Your Slag May won't have agile from Hag Claws, and your Hag Claws won't have grapple from Slag May. And for some reason, the community also says that means Hag Claws are not cold iron from Slag May, but they would be from Metal Strikes or Metal-Veined Strike.
Feel free to direct me to resources to refute that, as I'd love to do a very animal like iron hag build, even before I knew about Clawdancer. So... Your reasoning is "treated as" is somehow stronger than "made out of"?
I fail to see how this makes any sense.
If anything, something actually made out of something has even more weight, ruleswise, than something merely treated as if made of something.
As for same body part having different traits depending how it's used is nothing new. It exists from the very first book and the introduction of unarmed stances.
Your agile fist is not agile when you use it to pummel like a gorilla. It still uses your hand.
And Dragon kicks still use your legs even though they are not finesse.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Metal strikes is a really bad arguing point here. It explicitly applies to unarmed attacks generically, so it doesn't matter which attack you're using. If Metal Strikes only modified the Fist statblock, then you wouldn't be arguing that it should apply to Lashing Tail from dragon stance.
The whole line of thought is completely offtopic and unrelated. Like "why is an ability that effects all unarmed attacks different than something that modifies a specific ability" is a question that answers itself.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
If the abilities use the actual claws you have and the claws you have by their very nature act like cold iron then it would make sense for an ability that uses those claws no matter the technique would have that same property. Its a fundamentally different thing than how you use the claw, the claw no matter how you slice cant help but act like coldiron.
If the claws you had only had the cold iron property when used in a particular way similar to monk stance unarmed attacks only have certain traits and damage then some of the arguments that have made so far would make more sense for the archtype ability making sense as is.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
If you had to have talons to use the Spinning Talon unarmed attack then it would be listed as a requirement. It isn't. Spinning Talon is NOT a talon Strike. you don no have to have talons to use it. To require otherwise would make over half the feats unusable.
All of the Archetype Feats list only one prerequisite: Clawdancer Dedication. The only exception is except is Wheeling Grab, which also requires trained in Acrobatics. Why can you take Talon Sweep if you don't have talons? Because you don't use talons for it.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Kelseus wrote: If you had to have talons to use the Spinning Talon unarmed attack then it would be listed as a requirement. It isn't. Spinning Talon is NOT a talon Strike. you don no have to have talons to use it. To require otherwise would make over half the feats unusable.
All of the Archetype Feats list only one prerequisite: Clawdancer Dedication. The only exception is except is Wheeling Grab, which also requires trained in Acrobatics. Why can you take Talon Sweep if you don't have talons? Because you don't use talons for it.
What is the prereq for the dedication?
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Squiggit wrote: Metal strikes is a really bad arguing point here. It explicitly applies to unarmed attacks generically, so it doesn't matter which attack you're using. If Metal Strikes only modified the Fist statblock, then you wouldn't be arguing that it should apply to Lashing Tail from dragon stance.
The whole line of thought is completely offtopic and unrelated. Like "why is an ability that effects all unarmed attacks different than something that modifies a specific ability" is a question that answers itself.
a)Slug May doesn't only modify a specific Strike statblock. Slag may feat 2st sentence says "You have thick, sturdy claws made of cold iron that grow naturally from your body". That's a disntict mechanical advantage that's given from the feat.
b)I used the wording of Metal Strikes to poiont out that it's actually not different at all compared to the language of the hag nails (factually WEAKER language than the Slug May feat language). NOT to compare what they do.
And yes, if Metal Strikes was saying "your fists are made out of cold Iron" then it WOULD apply to ALL Strikes made with your fists. Same as All your Strikes with a Cold iron longsword apply cold iron weaknesses.
Slug may specifically changes your claws to be made out of cold iron.
That's a mechanical change.
Similarily to how a Cold Iron longsword triggers the cold iron weaknesses regardless of "how" you Strike with it, similarily Slug may claws trigger cold iron weaknesses regardless of how you Strike with them.
The Stances specifically also say that you are using said claws/talons for the attacks made, so as far as the OP goes, the answer to his question is clearly given in the text of the ability: you use your claws/talons to hit. So, by default, you need to have said claws/talons.
The conversation was sidetracked due to the cold iron Slug may argument, where the one who started this argument forgot to mention that the same feat specifically makes your claws made out of cold iron, thus rendering the whole thing moot since now that they are made out of cold iron, they do in fact trigger all things related to cold iron regardless of how you attack with them.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
shroudb wrote:
I used the wording of Metal Strikes to poiont out that it's actually not different at all compared to the language of the hag nails (factually WEAKER language than the Slug May feat language). NOT to compare what they do.
But it's not "weaker" it's completely different. Metal Strikes is an ability that modifies all of your unarmed attacks. Slag May gives you a specific attack with specific properties.
There's literally no equivalency here at all other than that both mention the phrase 'cold iron.'
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Squiggit wrote: shroudb wrote:
I used the wording of Metal Strikes to poiont out that it's actually not different at all compared to the language of the hag nails (factually WEAKER language than the Slug May feat language). NOT to compare what they do.
But it's not "weaker" it's completely different. Metal Strikes is an ability that modifies all of your unarmed attacks. Slag May gives you a specific attack with specific properties.
There's literally no equivalency here at all other than that both mention the phrase 'cold iron.' Slag may:
"You have thick, sturdy claws made of cold iron that grow naturally from your body"
THIS is a distinct mechanical effect from the feat that I'm talking about.
It modifies ALL of your Strikes with those Claws since now they are mechanically made out of Cold Iron, exactly like a cold iron longsword.
It's different than something like a flame unarmed stance that changes your strikes to fire only for the strikes in that stance. It doesn't say anything about the claws being cold iron only when you use this one specific attack in the feat.
Yes, the feat ALSO gives you a specific attack with those claws, with specific traits, but it ALSO does change your claws to be made out of cold iron for ALL usage of said claws.
p.s.
This is also how I compared them to Metal Strikes:
The poster I was replying said "the sentence "your claws are made out of cold iron" is just flavor."
And I basically replied that, "if that's just flavour, then Metal strikes which simply say "your strikes count as" should be flavor as well, no?"
I didn't compare the functionality 1 to 1, just pointed out that the language making something a"rule" and something "flavour" is nonexistent in pf2.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Bluemagetim wrote: Kelseus wrote: If you had to have talons to use the Spinning Talon unarmed attack then it would be listed as a requirement. It isn't. Spinning Talon is NOT a talon Strike. you don no have to have talons to use it. To require otherwise would make over half the feats unusable.
All of the Archetype Feats list only one prerequisite: Clawdancer Dedication. The only exception is except is Wheeling Grab, which also requires trained in Acrobatics. Why can you take Talon Sweep if you don't have talons? Because you don't use talons for it.
What is the prereq for the dedication? Claw OR Talons. If they wanted you to have both they would have asked for it.
Kelseus wrote: Bluemagetim wrote: Kelseus wrote: If you had to have talons to use the Spinning Talon unarmed attack then it would be listed as a requirement. It isn't. Spinning Talon is NOT a talon Strike. you don no have to have talons to use it. To require otherwise would make over half the feats unusable.
All of the Archetype Feats list only one prerequisite: Clawdancer Dedication. The only exception is except is Wheeling Grab, which also requires trained in Acrobatics. Why can you take Talon Sweep if you don't have talons? Because you don't use talons for it.
What is the prereq for the dedication? Claw OR Talons. If they wanted you to have both they would have asked for it. They don't have to:
There are feats in the archetype that work with Claws, feats in the archetype that work with Talons, and feats in the archetype that work with both.*
No one is forcing you to pick up Talon feats if you lack Talons.
Nor does simply having Access to a feat somehow forces said feat to always work for a character.
If you gained entrance to the archerype with only Claws, just pick the Claw feats.
*:
That's because the archetype is made to be super inclusive:
You want to be someone fighting with your claws? It works.
You want to be someone fighting with talons? It works
You want to be doing capoeira using both your claws and talons? It works
What it doesn't do is allowing you to grow body parts you don't already have.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Ok so if you graft adamantine claws on to your character to meet the dedication requirement and take feats that give claw attacks would all of those attacks use your adamantine claws and have that property?
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Conversely for that same character with adamantine claws if you have no talons and take feats that give talon attacks are you unable to actually use the talon attacks because you actually don't have talons?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Bluemagetim wrote: Ok so if you graft adamantine claws on to your character to meet the dedication requirement and take feats that give claw attacks would all of those attacks use your adamantine claws and have that property? Yes.
That's exactly how precious materials work.
Normally there aren't specific traits, your adamantine weapon doesn't has "adamantine" as a trait.
As an example, Silver Weapon:
Quote: Silver weapons deal additional damage to creatures with weakness to silver, like werewolves, and ignore the resistances of some other creatures, like devils. Nothing in there about a Trait.
And then Damage Types:
Quote: While not their own damage category, precious materials can modify damage to penetrate a creature's resistances or take advantage of its weaknesses. For instance, silver weapons are particularly effective against lycanthropes and bypass the resistances to physical damage that most devils have. And weakness/resistance rules:
Quote: If you have a weakness to something that doesn't normally deal damage,such as water, you take damage equal to the weakness value when touched or affected by it. If more than one weakness would apply to the same instance of damage, use only the highest applicable weakness value. This usually happens only when a monster is weak to both a type of physical damage and a given material. ---
Bluemagetim wrote: Conversely for that same character with adamantine claws if you have no talons and take feats that give talon attacks are you unable to actually use the talon attacks because you actually don't have talons? The Talon stance specifically says that you use your talons for the attack and that those are the only Strikes you can do while in that stance.
It's not that you cannot enter the stance, but the fact that you don't have something to attack with.
We can think multiple "weapon archetypes" that the feats do not work if you don't actually wield the required weapon. It's just that this Archetype has stuff for 2 distinct "weapons" plus stuff for using both, that throws imo people off.
Think of Pistol Phenom. Just because it can work with 2 pistols, or a pistol+melee, or simply pistol+empty, doesn't mean that ALL the feats in the archerype should simultaneously work for both pistol+pistol, pistol+ nothing, pistol+melee.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The difference between Pistol Phenom and Clawdancer though is that Clawdancer grants you the requisite attack as part of its stance. So you never really have to worry about whether or not you have the right attack available, since the stance gives it to you.
Squiggit wrote: The difference between Pistol Phenom and Clawdancer though is that Clawdancer grants you the requisite attack as part of its stance. So you never really have to worry about whether or not you have the right attack available, since the stance gives it to you. If you have the body part to attack with you get a specific attack, yes.
It doesn't grow new body parts though.
Each stance clearly says that it uses the preexisting Claws/Talons you have:
Quote: you extend the claws in your hands Quote: sweep with the claws on your feet Basically, the stances say: do this fancy attack with your claws, do this fancy attack with your talons.
If you don't have Claws in your Hands/Feet then there's nothing to attack with. You first need to have claws to extend them and you do need talons to sweep with.
That's like saying you can do a Pistol Phenom attack because you have the Feat that allows you to but you don't actually carry a gun.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
shroudb wrote:
That's like saying you can do a Pistol Phenom attack because you have the Feat that allows you to but you don't actually carry a gun.
Nah, because Pistol Phenom doesn't grant you a gun as part of its ability.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Really feels like folks are overcomplicating this. The intentions are super duper clear. Whether Slag May claws apply cold iron might be confusing if you think too hard about the rules interactions, but I'd personally allow it.
Squiggit wrote: shroudb wrote:
That's like saying you can do a Pistol Phenom attack because you have the Feat that allows you to but you don't actually carry a gun.
Nah, because Pistol Phenom doesn't grant you a gun as part of its ability. Nor does Clawdancer grant you claws or talons.
That's the point.
It only gives you attacks WITH claws or talons. Exactly like Phenom grants you attacks WITH guns.
You still gotta have them though, that part never changes, for either of those.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Having claws or talons is just a token requirement to ensure this feels different from just a quirky monk archetype.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
shroudb wrote:
It only gives you attacks WITH claws or talons. Exactly like Phenom grants you attacks WITH guns.
Not exactly like at all. Clawdancer's stances gives you a unique strike, effectively the stance grants you a weapon (though it's not actually a weapon since unarmed attacks are somewhat different, this might be the source of your confusion?). Pistol Phenom's abilities give you actions you perform with attacks you already have.
The archetype does have abilities like Pistol Phenom's, like Dashing Pounce, special activities that allow you to make strikes with a specific 'weapon' (again, functionally identical but technically different) granted to you by the Stance.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Squiggit wrote: shroudb wrote:
It only gives you attacks WITH claws or talons. Exactly like Phenom grants you attacks WITH guns.
Not exactly like at all. Clawdancer's stances gives you a unique strike, effectively the stance grants you a weapon (though it's not actually a weapon since unarmed attacks are somewhat different, this might be the source of your confusion?). Pistol Phenom's abilities give you actions you perform with attacks you already have.
The archetype does have abilities like Pistol Phenom's, like Dashing Pounce, special activities that allow you to make strikes with a specific 'weapon' (again, functionally identical but technically different) granted to you by the Stance. (putting the actual game definition of weapon aside)I would say it doesnt grant a weapon but a way to use unarmed with an existing weapon. It provides only the unarmed attack with the damage and traits of the attack.
Monk unarmed attacks use generally already existing fists or legs. if a character has no limbs could they do monk unarmed attacks? if a character had none and then picked up a monk stance would they now have gained the limbs needed to use the attack given from the stance?(I know this is a out there argument but it does get to the root of the difference)
The dedication stance's unarmed attacks do use existing claws or talons.
use slagmay as the example. It first says you have the claws and that they are cold iron. It then says you have an unarmed attack with the claws and goes on to say what that unarmed attacks damage and traits are.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Squiggit wrote: shroudb wrote:
It only gives you attacks WITH claws or talons. Exactly like Phenom grants you attacks WITH guns.
Not exactly like at all. Clawdancer's stances gives you a unique strike, effectively the stance grants you a weapon (though it's not actually a weapon since unarmed attacks are somewhat different, this might be the source of your confusion?). Pistol Phenom's abilities give you actions you perform with attacks you already have.
The archetype does have abilities like Pistol Phenom's, like Dashing Pounce, special activities that allow you to make strikes with a specific 'weapon' (again, functionally identical but technically different) granted to you by the Stance. It doesn't though.It gives you a Strike with a body part.
If you lack the body part you can't perform it.
Or are you suggesting that if I deliberately make a character with no legs I still do "spinning talons attacks" because I have a stance that gives me access to this Strike?
You still need hands to punch, you still need legs to kick, and you still need talons to make talon strikes.
As pointed multiple times so far with 0 recourse, the stances gives clearly indicate that they use your claws/talons, how are you suggesting using them without?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
shroudb wrote: Squiggit wrote: shroudb wrote:
It only gives you attacks WITH claws or talons. Exactly like Phenom grants you attacks WITH guns.
Not exactly like at all. Clawdancer's stances gives you a unique strike, effectively the stance grants you a weapon (though it's not actually a weapon since unarmed attacks are somewhat different, this might be the source of your confusion?). Pistol Phenom's abilities give you actions you perform with attacks you already have.
The archetype does have abilities like Pistol Phenom's, like Dashing Pounce, special activities that allow you to make strikes with a specific 'weapon' (again, functionally identical but technically different) granted to you by the Stance. It doesn't though.It gives you a Strike with a body part.
If you lack the body part you can't perform it.
Or are you suggesting that if I deliberately make a character with no legs I still do "spinning talons attacks" because I have a stance that gives me access to this Strike?
You still need hands to punch, you still need legs to kick, and you still need talons to make talon strikes.
As pointed multiple times so far with 0 recourse, the stances gives clearly indicate that they use your claws/talons, how are you suggesting using them without? You don't actually need Talons to make spinning talon strikes. This is evident by the flavor of the archetype (and the art) talking about Catfolk inventing this, when Catfolk can't have access to a Talon natural weapon (only Claws). It is also evident by the fact the Dedication requires Claws or Talons (not both) and it gives you access to both stances.
The intent is clearly that if you have claws on your hands, you probably also have them on your feet, and vice-versa. Does this work 100% of the time? No. But then again it also doesn't make a lot of sense to have Claw and Talon as different unarmed strikes. Talons are literally just Claws on your feet, so they should just be Claw attacks. I mean if the normal "Fist" weapon can stand for punching, kicking, kneeing, elbowing and what have you, then Claws can stand in for the thingies in your hands and the thingies in your feet.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
TheFinish wrote: shroudb wrote: Squiggit wrote: shroudb wrote:
It only gives you attacks WITH claws or talons. Exactly like Phenom grants you attacks WITH guns.
Not exactly like at all. Clawdancer's stances gives you a unique strike, effectively the stance grants you a weapon (though it's not actually a weapon since unarmed attacks are somewhat different, this might be the source of your confusion?). Pistol Phenom's abilities give you actions you perform with attacks you already have.
The archetype does have abilities like Pistol Phenom's, like Dashing Pounce, special activities that allow you to make strikes with a specific 'weapon' (again, functionally identical but technically different) granted to you by the Stance. It doesn't though.It gives you a Strike with a body part.
If you lack the body part you can't perform it.
Or are you suggesting that if I deliberately make a character with no legs I still do "spinning talons attacks" because I have a stance that gives me access to this Strike?
You still need hands to punch, you still need legs to kick, and you still need talons to make talon strikes.
As pointed multiple times so far with 0 recourse, the stances gives clearly indicate that they use your claws/talons, how are you suggesting using them without? You don't actually need Talons to make spinning talon strikes. This is evident by the flavor of the archetype (and the art) talking about Catfolk inventing this, when Catfolk can't have access to a Talon natural weapon (only Claws). It is also evident by the fact the Dedication requires Claws or Talons (not both) and it gives you access to both stances.
The intent is clearly that if you have claws on your hands, you probably also have them on your feet, and vice-versa. Does this work 100% of the time? No. But then again it also doesn't make a lot of sense to have Claw and Talon as different unarmed strikes. Talons are literally just Claws on your feet, so they should just be Claw attacks.... My argument is one of baody parts. As long as you have claws/talons then I'm fine. But not all ancestries have both. And certainly nothing in the archetype let's you grow claw/talons.
I've seen people in this very thread arguing for ancestries without legs, let alone talons on them, use spinning talon strikes.
You need claws on your feet to Strike with them the same way you need a hand to punch with it regardless if you have a stance that gives you a specific kind of punch.
The requirement being an "or" is irrelevant since the archetype functioning with only picking one or the other to begin wtih . So if you want to make a claw using martial, you can use the archetype and never bother with talons.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I'm with shroudb here. There's a difference between having a body part and having an unarmed attack with it. Cats may not have talons (as a named unarmed attack or otherwise) but they have claws on their feet that logically be used for Talon Strikes. This archetype is meant to let you lean into natural (or grafted) parts of your body rather than reflavoring martial arts or polymorphing to a different shape.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
You can be a Clawdancer if you have claws or talons.
If you are a clawdancer, you can access Claw Stance in which you make Frenzied Claw attacks, and Talon Stance in which you can make Spinning Talen attacks.
But you don't need claws or talons to make those attacks, much like how someone in crane stance doesn't need wings to make Crane Wing attacks, someone in dragon stance doesn't need a tail to make Dragon Tail attacks, and how someone in Tiger stance doesn't need claws to make Tiger Claw attacks.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote: You can be a Clawdancer if you have claws or talons.
If you are a clawdancer, you can access Claw Stance in which you make Frenzied Claw attacks, and Talon Stance in which you can make Spinning Talen attacks.
But you don't need claws or talons to make those attacks, much like how someone in crane stance doesn't need wings to make Crane Wing attacks, someone in dragon stance doesn't need a tail to make Dragon Tail attacks, and how someone in Tiger stance doesn't need claws to make Tiger Claw attacks.
Dont you think that comparison is off a bit though?
Crane wing stance doesnt actually involve the use of actual wings, and dragon tail stance doesnt call for use of a tail. They both use assume the use of limbs like arms and legs to do their attacks.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
PossibleCabbage wrote: You can be a Clawdancer if you have claws or talons.
If you are a clawdancer, you can access Claw Stance in which you make Frenzied Claw attacks, and Talon Stance in which you can make Spinning Talen attacks.
But you don't need claws or talons to make those attacks, much like how someone in crane stance doesn't need wings to make Crane Wing attacks, someone in dragon stance doesn't need a tail to make Dragon Tail attacks, and how someone in Tiger stance doesn't need claws to make Tiger Claw attacks.
There's a huge difference between monk and clawdancer stances:
Monk stances:
Quote: You enter the stance of a crane, holding your arms in an imitation of a crane’s wings and using flowing, defensive motions. Quote: You enter the stance of a dragon and make powerful leg strikes like a lashing dragon’s tail. Let's see what Frenzied claw and Talon stance say:
Quote: you extend the claws in your hands Quote: sweep with the claws on your feet Unlike Monk stances that need Hands/Feet Claw dancer stances need Claws/Talons.
So, unless you suggest that you can do monk punches without arms and monk kicks without legs, you cannot do Clawdancer strikes without Calws/Talons.
|
