PCs with natural attacks, how do you maximize the number of attacks in a round?

[harpy]

So you end up being able to play a PC with natural attacks, say three of them (claw, claw, bite) and you want to figure out how to optimize their use.

First, you want to make sure you're DM will let you use the multiattack feat out of the Bestiary. This will drop secondary attacks down from -5 to hit to -2 to hit. That will end up being important if you use manufactured weapons.

Also, in general, you'll want to consider using the Improved Natural Attack feat to up the damage die on one type of natural attack.

Now for the tough part, how to stack these natural attacks on top of the regular attacks you get for being a character.

In 3.5, if you dug around in the FAQ long enough, you'd find that you could stack monk's flurry of blows with natural attacks. That allowed for some 1st level monster PCs to start off with four to seven attacks. The to hit rolls were awful, but dang... that handful of dice was a lot of fun to roll.

You can't do this in Pathfinder as they specifically plugged that hole in the flurry of blows entry, saying natural attacks can't be used in conjunction with a flurry.

What about being a Druid? Well, you won't get a gonzo amount of attacks at first level, but do your natural attacks in some bizarre way mesh with wild shape later on? No, unfortunately not. In the polymorph description while at first it reads encouragingly vague, by the end of the entry you find that your original natural attacks go away.

Alright, what about two-weapon fighting? You grab two weapons and then try and bite your opponent on top of that. Here you can actually pull that off, but with some penalties. First, all of your natural attacks drop down to secondary status if you use manufactured weapons, regardless of their normal status. So you're looking at -5 to hit (or -2 if you have multiattack).

Second, it really depends on the types of natural attacks you have. For each natural attack you have to have the limb free to use in the attack. If you have the rather typical claw/claw/bite then only your bite is going to be free with two-weapon fighting. So claws, one of the most common natural attacks, is something to avoid if you want to stack all of these attacks together. Bite, gore, tail, wings, hooves... these are all pretty good. A slam attack might be good if it can mean a kick or body check, though I haven't been able to track down its specific definition in Pathfinder.

Third, this is a good point, is that natural attacks always count as light so that these extra attacks won't muck up your two-weapon fighting modifiers.

The end result would be at first level (assuming a fighter type):

-1 longsword (+1 BAB and -2 TWF), -1 shortsword (+1 BAB and -2 TWF), and -6 Bite (+1 BAB, -2 TWF, -5 secondary).

What about iterative attacks? Yes! It works! So once you get to the magical +6/+1 BAB you can bust out several attacks. If you go back to the claw/claw/bite you'll find it isn't totally useless because of the claws. The iterative attacks you use as a normal character can all be used with one weapon, so if you have a long sword you can take your +6/+1 attacks with the longsword. In addition you can take one claw (with your free hand) and the bite. Even better, they use your full BAB score of +6!

So you end up with an attack array of +6 longsword, +1 longsword, +1 claw (+6 BAB -5 for being temporarily secondary) and +1 bite +6 BAB -5 for being temporarily secondary).

It should be noted that you can do this at level 1 with just your one attack you get. It just isn't that flashy at that level, since it would be +1 longsword, -4 claw, -4 bite.

It looks as if Paizo was able to plug up that loophole from 3.5 and now you can roll over low level games with zillions of attacks, at least without making PC monster races filled with non arm based natural attacks.

Did I miss anything?

 

[GlassEye]

...So you end up with an attack array of +6 longsword, +1 longsword, +1 claw (+6 BAB -5 for being temporarily secondary) and +1 bite +6 BAB -5 for being temporarily secondary)...

Did I miss anything?

Yes. Attacking with both weapons and natural attacks causes your weapon attacks to be calculated as if two-weapon fighting. So the final attack array (at BAB +6/+1) actually ends up being +4 longsword, -1 longsword, +1 claw, +1 bite. If you don't have the TWF feat it's even worse.

In addition, all of your attacks made with melee weapons and unarmed strikes are made as if you were two-weapon fighting. Your natural attacks are treated as light, off-hand weapons for determining the penalty to your other attacks.

Natural attacks/PFSRD

 

[harpy]

Good catch! Thanks!

 

[zag01]

Yes. Attacking with both weapons and natural attacks causes your weapon attacks to be calculated as if two-weapon fighting. So the final attack array (at BAB +6/+1) actually ends up being +4 longsword, -1 longsword, +1 claw, +1 bite. If you don't have the TWF feat it's even worse.

Natural attacks/PFSRD

Thats not the way I read it. The quote you mention says "weapons and unarmed strikes". Unarmed strikes are not the same as natural attacks.

Also the Beastiary pg302 says when you fight with weapons and natural attacks you "attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack"

To me it reads that you only take two-weapon fighting penalties when you are actually fighting with two weapons (or a weapon and an unarmed strike), so the original posters math was correct.

 

[GlassEye]

Thats not the way I read it. The quote you mention says "weapons and unarmed strikes". Unarmed strikes are not the same as natural attacks.

You are correct; unarmed strikes are not the same as natural attacks. But in this instance unarmed strikes are counted as the same as weapon attacks. Natural attacks are in a category of their own. When using both weapon/unarmed attacks and natural attacks the weapon/unarmed attacks are calculated as if you are two-weapon fighting. Natural attacks are calculated as secondary attacks.

Also the Beastiary pg302 says when you fight with weapons and natural attacks you "attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack"

Yes. That's why in the example above the claw and bite are at +1 instead of +6 to hit.

To me it reads that you only take two-weapon fighting penalties when you are actually fighting with two weapons (or a weapon and an unarmed strike), so the original posters math was correct.

Except the quote I posted above concerning weapon/unarmed attacks being calculated as if two-weapon fighting was from the section on natural attacks and specifically using weapon/unarmed attacks with natural attacks.

Here's the full quote from the PFSRD (emphesis mine).

You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack. For example, you cannot make a claw attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a longsword. When you make additional attacks in this way, all of your natural attacks are treated as secondary natural attacks, using your base attack bonus minus 5 and adding only 1/2 of your Strength modifier on damage rolls. In addition, all of your attacks made with melee weapons and unarmed strikes are made as if you were two-weapon fighting. Your natural attacks are treated as light, off-hand weapons for determining the penalty to your other attacks. Feats such as Two-Weapon Fighting and Multiattack can reduce these penalties.

 

[zag01]

When using both weapon/unarmed attacks and natural attacks the weapon/unarmed attacks are calculated as if you are two-weapon fighting. Natural attacks are calculated as secondary attacks.

...

In addition, all of your attacks made with melee weapons and unarmed strikes are made as if you were two-weapon fighting.

I understand all that. I'm not questioning the natural weapon attack penalty but the weapon/unarmed penalty.

The part of the PFSRD you emphasized is in conflict with the part of the PFSRD that says:

"Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action (although often a creature must forgo one natural attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a claw, tentacle, or slam). Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack’s original type."

Now I realize this isn't WotC but their rule was the more recent publication supersedes the earlier one. The rule you quote was published in the Core Rulebook and mine is from the Bestiary, which came out later.

The fact that both are in the PFSRD muddies the water.

I think that if you use your interpretation then you're over penalizing the PC since you're doubling up on the attack penalties. (–4 with your weapon and –5 with your natural attacks) assuming no feats are taken. Even if you take two-weapon fighting your penalties are still –2 and –5. You’d have to also take multiattack to get it down to –2, –2 and that’s assuming you have 3+ natural attacks to qualify for it.

If you’re born with a natural attack(s) and trained to use a weapon, two feats seems like a steep price to pay to be able to use them together. Especially when you have to give up one or more natural attacks just to wield the weapon and a character with two weapons only needs one feat to be just as good.

 

[harpy]

I can't remember where I read it, perhaps it is in the unofficial FAQ on the PRD, but I recall that the Bestiary entry takes precedent, and it was specifically explained that it took precedent due to the fact that it was the more recent publication.

 

[GlassEye]

Q: The rules for Natural Attacks and weapons from the Core book are different from what is in the Bestiary. The Core rules say that if combining natural and weapon attacks that they are treated as if using two-weapon fighting, but the Bestiary matches to what is in the 3.5 rules. Which is correct?

A: (James Jacobs 10/30/09) Part of the problem, alas, is that this is a rules mechanic that Jason was wrestling with up to the very last second. The Bestiary rules are correct. The part in the core rules that contradicts this is a fragment, alas, that stuck in there. It should be cleaned up, I agree. It's unfortunate that the confusion is in there, but again, as far as I understand the game and as far as I've been using the rules for the last several volumes of Pathfinder, the rules from the Bestiary are the correct ones.

The above, for completeness sake. So, you are right but I had to search all over to find it. This information needs to be more accessible. I'm curious, was the pdf or the second printing of the book updated with this?

 

[zag01]

I only have the first printing of both books, but the PDFs I have were revised once and it wasn't changed in them or in the PFSRD. I agree it needs to be more accessible for sure. Thanks for doing the research and finding the FAQ. Its good to have the official word from Paizo.