Wow, do I not understand Wildshape....

[GodPhoenix]

clarification

I'm a little confused by what you (read y'all) mean by "iterative attacks"...say vs. multiple natural weapons. Can someone clarify this for me please? Thx!

 

[Voadam]

I'm a little confused by what you (read y'all) mean by "iterative attacks"...say vs. multiple natural weapons. Can someone clarify this for me please? Thx!

Any creature that uses a weapon or unarmed attacks gets extra attacks at five less of a bonus when their BAB reaches +6, +11, +16. Natural weapons cannot be used with iterative attacks. However, a creature with natural weapons can use all of them in a full attack action with a primary one at full BAB and all others as secondary at -5 penalty to the attack roll. So a 1 HD cat with claw claw bite can get 3 attacks in a full attack. A 30 HD snake could only make one attack with its bite per round however. A 6th level fighter with +6 BAB gets two attacks one at +6 and one at +1

It gets interesting when you mix and match. A tigerman with +6 BAB, natural weapon claws and a bite who is armed with a sword gets +6 and +1 with the sword (iterative attacks) and can use his other claw and bite as secondary natural weapon attacks at +1 and +1.

Secondary natural weapon attacks are a little like two weapon fighting but do not affect the primary attack.

 

[DrSpunj]

It gets interesting when you mix and match. A tigerman with +6 BAB, natural weapon claws and a bite who is armed with a sword gets +6 and +1 with the sword (iterative attacks) and can use his other claw and bite as secondary natural weapon attacks at +1 and +1.

Secondary natural weapon attacks are a little like two weapon fighting but do not affect the primary attack.

Okay, thank you very much for spelling that out with such a clear example, but like I was asking reapersaurus in my second to last post, where is the fact that you get to keep your iterative attacks spelled out in the rules? I don't see it in the Manufactured weapons section that Camarath quoted. Is it in the Minotaur example in the MM (which I'll be taking a look at as soon as I get a chance).

Thanks.

DrSpunj

 

[reapersaurus]

It's right here:

Some creatures combine attacks with natural and manufactured weapons when they make a full attack. When they do so, the
manufactured weapon attack is considered the primary attack unless the creature’s description indicates otherwise and any natural weapons the creature also uses are considered secondary natural attacks. These secondary attacks do not interfere with the primary attack as attacking with an off-hand weapon does, but they take the usual –5 penalty (or –2 with the Multiattack feat) for such attacks, even if the natural weapon used is normally the creature’s primary natural weapon.

It's also listed even more explicitly in the Saurials writeup on Wizard's site, originally clarified in Dragon #294, I think is the #.

 

[Camarath]

Okay, thank you very much for spelling that out with such a clear example, but like I was asking reapersaurus in my second to last post, where is the fact that you get to keep your iterative attacks spelled out in the rules? I don't see it in the Manufactured weapons section that Camarath quoted. Is it in the Minotaur example in the MM (which I'll be taking a look at as soon as I get a chance).

Thanks.

DrSpunj

Manufactured Weapons: Some monsters employ manufactured weapons when they attack. Creatures that use swords, bows, spears, and the like follow the same rules as characters, including those for additional attacks from a high base attack bonus and two-weapon fighting penalties.

Also look at the stat blocks in the 3.5 MM.

 

[Iku Rex]

WotC is not required to support their product in any way. These are things they do because it is in their best interest, not because it is required.

When WotC sells a flawed product they have a responsibility to correct it. (Within reason of course.)

He owes us nothing. His job is to design. His ideas vastly improved 3.5. There are problems, but it is not part of his job to fix them. We're supposed to direct those to custserv@wizards.com.

Andy (and the rest of R&D) has a responsibility for the quality of his work. If he messed up, then he should fix it. If he spent half the time he spent bragging about 3.5, on answering the FAQs from the boards, it would have made a major impact on the clarity of the game rules.

The one mitigating factor is that - apparently - he doesn't get paid to clarify the unclear rules he was supposed to fix in 3.5 (or created in 3.5). And I even blame him a bit for that. I have seen no indication that he's tried to make it part of his job. (Understandably of course - you don't want to ask your boss for extra time to do what he's already paid you to do, and the game designers, [with a few honest exceptions] are notoriously loath to deal with their mistakes.)

 

[jgsugden]

When WotC sells a flawed product they have a responsibility to correct it. (Within reason of course.)
Andy (and the rest of R&D) has a responsibility for the quality of his work. If he messed up, then he should fix it. If he spent half the time he spent bragging about 3.5, on answering the FAQs from the boards, it would have made a major impact on the clarity of the game rules.

The one mitigating factor is that - apparently - he doesn't get paid to clarify the unclear rules he was supposed to fix in 3.5 (or created in 3.5). And I even blame him a bit for that. I have seen no indication that he's tried to make it part of his job. (Understandably of course - you don't want to ask your boss for extra time to do what he's already paid you to do, and the game designers, [with a few honest exceptions] are notoriously loath to deal with their mistakes.)

You have a very common opinion. The fact that it is commonly held, though, does not make it a fact.

There is *nothing* that legally binds WotC to issue errata or support their D&D products. They can publish a book and completely forget about it except for collecting profits. They issue errata and maintain their product because it is in their best interest. Not because they have a duty. They might say some pretty things about why they issue errata and make updates (and the people saying it might really believe it), but if it was in the best interests of the company to not maintain the product, somebody in a suit would prevent it.

As for Andy 'messing' up: If you'd be so kind as to explain, in detail, the workings of the WotC design teams, I'll consider your opinion. If you don't know how it works, you have no right to accuse one individual of being the source of problems. I know that Andy was responsible for a few concepts that have really improved the game. I know he played a key part in fixing problems that most players had not even recognized (ie; 3.0 power attack resulting in an average loss of 35% - 50% of expected damage for some characters because it didn't work properly). His conceptual additions to the game were marvelous. Some of the editing, play testing and fine tuning are less acceptable. I don't see his name under those credits. He was ultimately in charge of the entire PHB revision, but you can blame the 'boss' only so much for the failings of others.

And as for those people that did 'fail', they did not have unlimited time or resources. The 3.0 design process had many years more time to be developed. The 3.5 crew worked on a smaller scale with far fewer resources. Expecting perfection is unreasonable. Their efforts were not ideal, but they were far from horrible as well.

 

[Nail]

It's right here: It's also listed even more explicitly in the Saurials writeup on Wizard's site, originally clarified in Dragon #294, I think is the #.

Does this not strike you as, uhm, overpowered?

That is, a creature with high BAB and many natural attacks will get an insane number of attacks per round!

I also find it very ...strange...that a high hit die creature, with a high BAB, will get as many interative attacks as a highly trained fighter.

"Quick! Tarrasque! Pick up the Collossal Longsword!"

EDIT: BTW, can we leave the discussion of WotC culpability (or the dreaded PA discussion) to some other thread? Thanks.

 

["Jack" Reapersaurus]

Nail, no that's not a concern, IF the creature normally wouldn't know how to weild a manufactured weapon.

A creature with natural attacks should gain some benefit from them if it can also weild weapons. They wouldn't get an insane #, just from their natural attacks - just 1 or 2 more, usually.

I think your concern is the high HD monsters (therefore high BAB) picking up a weapon and getting insane numbers of attacks.

I'm no monster expert, but D&D has always had big-HD monsters as opponents of high-level PC's. In my eyes, the only rules aspect that saves the PC's from getting slaughtered is that those monsters are usually too stupid to know how to 'train' to be a fighter-type class, and use manufactured weapons.
In your Terrasque example, his INT is only 3, so that's why it's not an issue - he can't use a Longsword to gain iterative attacks off his insane BAB.
If some idiot DM was dumb enough to want to play around and give the Big T just ONE level of fighter, well yeah - there'd be a BIG problem roaming about the countryside.

 

[FrankTrollman]

Does this not strike you as, uhm, overpowered?

Usually not. However, the fact that Epic Hit Dice continue to give BAB make Epic Cretaures pretty absurd.

For normal creatures - it tends not to be a big deal. Many creatures lose a comparable amount of damage to what they get out of weapon use just from the fact that their natural weapons become secondary.

For example, a Brown Bear can use a Greatsword (or Large Longsword if you are using the stupid 3.5 weapon size fiasco) with the opposable enhancement in one hand.

That magical sword is going to have one attack at +12 for 2d6+9 damage. But the other claw was going to be at +11 for d8+8, and now it's at +6 for d8+4. That's a big hit on the off-claw, and it makes the whole weapon-using thing somewhat undesireable.

It gets insane when applied to Black Slaad - but Black Slaad were already insane so I don't think I care.

-Frank