How many attacks? Natural Attacks & BAB

[strongbow]

Let's say I have a Troll, which has a claw and a bite as natural attacks. His full attack is 2 claws and a bite.

Now Bob the Troll hones his abilities, and with some help gains 8 levels in monk. How many attacks does he get on a full attack?

1) 3 2 claws and a bite. Sorry, you can't combine natural with BAB attacks

2) 6 2 claws, bite, unarmed, unarmed, flurry unarmed (unarmed attacks dealing monk damage based on monk level. Sorry, you may have a claw, but your monk attacks must use monk damage.)

3) 6 2 claws, bite, 3 more attacks (if flurrying) as any combination of claws and bites.

4) 5 One claw, bite, 3 unarmed attacks

5) Anything else

 

[Camarath]

I believe the right answer is 2.

 

[Darklone]

He simply gains a better BAB, no additional attacks.

 

[reapersaurus]

Daklone - why do you consistently state unsupported statements like that?
You said about the same unsupported words here:
http://enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=63018
and it was equally as unhelpful.

Strongbow - this seems fairly straightforward, since your situation doesn't involve Wildshape or Alter Self or Polymorph.

Your troll gains all benefits of the CLASSES it took.
Therefore, the answer is #3.

Does a human have any limitations on the attacks it can use with it's BAB-granted attacks? No.
There's a reason why natural attacks are considered good to have - they cost creatures extra ECL, across the board, with every creature made.
Why would natural attacks be useless if the troll took monk levels? They wouldn't.

anyway, I'd read the other thread if you're curious.

 

[FrankTrollman]

2) 6 2 claws, bite, unarmed, unarmed, flurry unarmed (unarmed attacks dealing monk damage based on monk level. Sorry, you may have a claw, but your monk attacks must use monk damage.)

This is correct - to a point.

There is another point however. In this example, the Troll would do only half strength damage with both the claws and the bite. Further, all of the natural attacks would suffer a -5 penalty (subject to multiattack).

As soon as you use a "normal" attack as your primary attack form - all of your natural attacks become "secondary" attacks - even if they are normally the primary attack form of that creature.

-Frank

 

[youspoonybard]

Using a natural weapon is different than the "unarmed attack" technique. Also, Claws and Bites aren't monk weapons. I would rule that you could do:

Claw Claw Bite (-5) using your BAB; ful str damage on the claws, 1/2 on the bite, or:

How many flurry attacks you get, using your BAB and Strength (as well as any Weapon Focus feats you have for Unarmed Strike), doing full str damage and damage based upon the unarmed strike of a large creature (trolls are large, right?), modified by how many monk levels you have.

For instance, if you were a Monk 1, and you somehow got turned into a bear, you could attack with claw claw bite-5, doing the damages listed in the "Bear" entry in the MM...or you could Flurry, doing 2 attacks at -2 penalty, doing 1d8+str damage each time...because large monks do 1d8 points of damage with their unarmed strike.

Also, taking into account that the Druid is proficient with her natural weapons, I would also assume that other people aren't; and apply a -4 penalty to the Claw Claw Bite routine; not the flurry one though.

 

[reapersaurus]

ugh.

I really think there should be a rule that monster monks automatically have their natural attacks considered as unarmed attacks for monk purposes.

It's not like a bear would ever hit someone with an unarmed attack - their claw IS their "unarmed attack".
A monk's unarmed damage is almost always more than a claw or bite, so if a monster with monk levels wants to use claws instead of punching, it sure seems natural (pun intended) to allow that.

 

[reapersaurus]

Using a natural weapon is different than the "unarmed attack" technique. Also, Claws and Bites aren't monk weapons.

See, I do think that claws are unarmed attacks.
I don't see claws and bite in a list of weapons to purchase.

To consider a bear's claw attack as any different from a humanoid's punch attack is being a bit anthropocentric, IMO. (Meaning, forcing our views and standards on their style of fighting)

Igf humans had effective claws, you can be darned sure we'd use them as an "unarmed strike".
Come to think of it, don't females use a claw attack pretty often in fights?

 

[Brekki]

All natural attacks are unarmed attacks. It said so in the 3.0 PH, at the end of the combat chapter.

Unarmed Attacks
“Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character or creature attacks unarmed but still counts as armed. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat (page 83), a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with claws, fangs, and similar natural physical weapons all count as armed.

I don't know exactly where it says so in 3.5.

So the troll has two choices:
- "monster attack": two claws at full bab, full str to damage and bite at -5, half str to damage
- "monk flurry": with claws ... attacks at bab-2/bab-2/bab-7 ... all have full str to damage

 

[Darklone]

Daklone - why do you consistently state unsupported statements like that?

Because I read them here

I usually don't have my books at work... and I do use the SRD now and then, right ?