Flying Kick and druids

[nimisgod]

Having natural weapons does not even count as having the improved unarmed strike feat - you's still need to get the feat prereqs the normal way.

-Frank

The Sword and Fist mentions that if you have claws, a bite, a tail, etc. (pg 83), then you qualify as having the Improved Unarmed Strike Feat.

Of course, S&F is non-core so that may or may not apply depending on the GM.

 

[FrankTrollman]

Well, no. First of all, that's page sixty three, and it says that they effectively have it (which means that they don't provoke attacks of opportunity), it doesn't say that they have it for purposes of it being a virtual feat.

It's sloppy wording in a sloppily worded book. Remember that this is the book which expects us to somehow get the impression that you cannot be counter-tripped when unsuccessfully using Knockdown.

-Frank

 

[nimisgod]

Well, no. First of all, that's page sixty three, and it says that they effectively have it (which means that they don't provoke attacks of opportunity), it doesn't say that they have it for purposes of it being a virtual feat.

It's sloppy wording in a sloppily worded book. Remember that this is the book which expects us to somehow get the impression that you cannot be counter-tripped when unsuccessfully using Knockdown.

-Frank

Number one, just because a book has sloppy wording or has bad rulings it does not follow one can just discount it in its entirety. The DMG 3.5 for example is chock full of 3.0 stuff (Ogres are still CR 2 in the EL examples) but do we disregard everything therein?

Number two,

A fighter or monk whose kind has natural attacks such as claws, slams or a bit, use natural attacks just like weapons. This means, among other things, that the character effectively has the Improved Unarmed Strike feat. Any feat that applies to a specific weapon such as Improved Critical, Weapon Finesse,...
..apply to Natural Weapons as well. Of course, it is impossible to disarm an opponent who is attacking with natural weapons.
page 63 Sword and Fist.

I'll admit that the latter sentences makes the argument a little fuzzy but the words are there. If you read the section about Virtual feats on page 5, it appears to agree. It looks like a Virtual Feat to me, dude.

Once again, its not core, so in that respect, its validity may be in question.

 

[youspoonybard]

I see the text, but I've never seen it floated that creatures with natural weapons can do nonlethal damage without taking a -4 penalty. Or kick someone on an AoO while holding something with your claws.

 

[Pielorinho]

I've actually wondered about this too. I was statting up an advanced dire ape as an animal companion for a druid character. Per the rules, the ape was to get a bonus feat or two, and I thought that Improved Grapple would make a fine bonus feat.

By the rules, however, the ape couldn't take Improved Grapple unless it also took Improved Unarmed Strike first -- which strikes me as silly.

I ended up taking something else instead.

Daniel

 

[youspoonybard]

Improved Unarmed Strike is excellent for a grappling creature. Now you can do lethal damage with your opposed grapple checks!

 

[green slime]

Not at all. The AC penalty specifically applies until your next turn, while the attack bonus only applies to the attack from the Charge. If you make an AoO after your charge, the bonus does not apply, but you still retain the AC penalty. A Choker who charges and uses his Quickness action to make a second attack does not receive the bonus, but they retain the AC penalty.

Someone who uses True Strike or Smite Evil to attack and then Cleave does not retain the attack bonus from the effect on their Cleave attack - it only applies for a single attack.

A Cleave from a charge occurs after the single attack that a charge allows, and is thus no longer a charge.

-Hyp.

I agree with hypersmurf...

and with regards to:
"If a DM tried to pull that kind of crap on me, I think I would pick up my dice and walk away. Some things are just disagreements - that's just stupid."


I think if a player took his dice and left the game over a single ruling to avoid cheese, it'd be with my laughter ringing in their ears. It is a game for goodness sake!

 

[FrankTrollman]

It is a game for goodness sake!

Precisely. Moreover, it is a cooperative storytelling game. Emphasis on "cooperative". If the DM is pulling adversarial crap like shutting down Spirited Charge/Cleave combos, there's no cooperation. There is, in short, no reason for the players to continue playing.

The DM doesn't have some kind of magical monopoly on the game - he's just one of the players. Spirited Charge + Cleave is part of the game - an important part for players who want to play mounted warriors. If the DM is hand waving and shutting that sort of thing down he's arbitrarily keeping perfectly legitimate characters from being made. If he's shutting this sort of thing down after the characters are made he's just screwing over players for no reason.

I don't play with DMs who say "your abilities don't work anymore for no good reason." That's not conducive to player/DM trust and it doesn't make a good story. As a DM, I expect players to not argue with me when I tell them whether an enemy makes a saving throw or not. As a player I expect DMs to not arbitrarily screw over my character.

That's basic respect. If a DM isn't showing it - there's no reason to play with them. If a player isn't showing it - there's no reason to play with them.

-Frank

 

[reapersaurus]

wow. You sure like to look at things in the most adverserial light.

Is it possible that the DM is having trouble adjusting the power levels of his game to accomodate both a powergamed charactrer, and the average player in the campaign?

I don't think you could find more of an advocate of Player Rights (and "The DM is not always right") on these entire boards than me, and I would never go so far as to say

The DM doesn't have some kind of magical monopoly on the game - he's just one of the players. Spirited Charge + Cleave is part of the game - an important part for players who want to play mounted warriors.

The DM DOES have say over the big picture of the campaign, and if the campaign is lessened by having an over-powered (FOR THE CAMPAIGN) PC in it, than it is his responsibility to try and rectify the unbalanced power issue.

Your mention of "player/DM trust" and "basic respect" is frankly galling to me.

NEEDING to have a powerful combo is NOT an important part of the game for mounted players.
It is simply an accessory.
You could say that Spirited Charge is an important part, but requiring the Cleave part to be allowed, or else you'll take your ball and go home and Damn You for daring to deny me my by-the-rules combo is (insert adjective here).

 

[FrankTrollman]

NEEDING to have a powerful combo is NOT an important part of the game for mounted players.

Actually, it is.

"Normal" fighters get multiple attacks every round, the mounted character only gets a single basic attack every round. If he is to be of equal weight to a barbarian with a greatsword he needs his damage multiples and his bonus attacks.

He needs both, otherwise the mounted character is handing out significantly less damage each round than the Full-Attacking characters he is paling around with.

That's how the game is balanced. And taking that away is just like taking away the Rogue's Sneak Attack (or ability to make multiple sneak attacks) - the character's ability to hand out damage in proportion to what he is being asked to is reduced and the character is not balanced any more.

-Frank