Claws of the Beast question

Claws of the Beast question 2016-02-13T03:30:26+00:00
Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • Author
  • Ryan
    Post count: 3
    #39950 |

    I need help figuring something out.
    In the power description, it says
    “You take no penalties for two weapon fighting, and neither attack is a secondary attack unless you are using manufactured weapons in the same round, in which any claw not used to wield a weapon is considered a secondary attack (just like any other creature that uses both manufactured and natural weapons)”

    Later in the entry it indicates “If you attack with a manufactured weapon or another primary natural attack, you cant make any claw attacks that round”

    What am I missing, as these seem to be contradictory statements.
    Any help and /or interpretation is appreciated.


    Post count: 7

    Looks like someone came back to the power after it was written and decided to nerf it by disallowing the use of claws of the beast in conjunction with other attacks.

    As usual for psionics nerfs, it’s kind of a dumb nerf. However, given the already inconsistent and contradictory nature of the 3.5 natural attack rules, I’d say that it’s about par for the course.

    Not being a dev, I can’t answer the question officially, but I can tell you that if your DM thinks having a single secondary claw attack from this power to add to your full attack is somehow OP or broken, he is clearly on drugs and should be sent to rehab. Ways of getting extra attacks are a dime a dozen in D&D.

    Post count: 1

    I’m not a dev either, but I think this is a case of confusing the 3.5 rules with the PF rules, and/or possibly a copy/paste error when importing the power to PF.

    Natural attacks in PF don’t work like they used to in 3.5. For example, a creature can have any number of primary attacks, whereas they could only have one in 3.5, and only if they did not attack with any manufactured weapons during the same full attack (which matches with the latter contradictory sentence in the power). Also, two-weapon fighting has absolutely nothing to do with natural attacks in PF (which matches with the first sentence). In conclusion, I recommend that you simply ignore the latter contradictory sentence and have the claw attacks granted by claws of the beast follow the general PF rules for natural attacks. Meaning you can gain and make any number of primary and/or secondary natural attacks during a full attack, provided you have at least one free limb to deliver each attack (one arm/hand per claw attack, one head per bite, one tail per tail slap etc.). Claws are primary attacks (full bab and Str bonus) provided you don’t attack with wielded weapons or unarmed strikes (ie anything that can be affected by TWF or requiring two hands) during the same action, and secondary natural attacks (bab -5 and half Str bonus) if you do.

    AFAIK, outside of a few Path of War maneuvers, there are three noteworthy exceptions to these rules in PF: a) you only need one head to deliver both a gore primary attack and a bite primary attack, b) a PC cannot normally use his/her feet to make claw attacks unless those attacks were granted as an eidolon evolution or while polymorphed into another creature which has that ability, and c) the attacks granted by the metamorphosis line of powers don’t require you to have any limbs for delivering the attacks (you can for example gain up to three additional claw primary attacks without the need for any additional arms/hands).

    Hope this may help.

    Post count: 45

    I’m not 100% but I believe that the last statement was placed in there to keep the power from being used as well as the normal full attack action a creature could have. Basically to keep the attack routines separate.

    Yes natural attacks work differently in PFRPG, but the UltPsi has been redone at least twice (?) since that change so I doubt that 3.5 “artifacts” is the culprit. Natural attacks are already powerful at lower levels, I find it significantly more likely they didn’t want to contribute to the power creep by making it an either/or situation. Do the normal natural attack routine or the one granted by the power, makes much more sense. And by stating if another primary attack is used, it is easily done. Basically it is just a matter of the power does what it says, and no more, so it doesn’t cause issues in other niche circumstances that didn’t exist at the time to consider.

    I have no clue about the manufactured weapons part however, unless there was supposed to be a “2 handed” in front of it or something like that. As it was covered in detail prior, it does seem contradictory wording as it stands now.

    • This reply was modified 3 years, 6 months ago by  Skylancer4.
Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.