Ye olde classic unarmed strike/natural weapon question.

[Iku Rex]

I would like to hear Iku Rex's response on that issue, however.

You mean the "spread the natural attacks around" issue? I've been trying to avoid it because as far as I can tell it's a non-issue. And I'm not sure if I understand it right - it seems even more surreal to me than the other arguments you've introduced. I've been waiting for some sort of explanation for why it's relevant to this thread. That's not me being "rude", that's me assessing the validity of a presented argument.

Keeping the above in mind:

1. Andy Collins says that the DnD rules allow you to make both a flurry and secondary natural attacks with a full attack action. You say that since no DnD rule prevents you from making natural attacks in any order you like, they can be made in any order. This (somehow?) prevents you from making both a flurry and secondary natural attacks with a full attack action, and thus Andy's rule is contradicted.

Problem: You just contradicted your "no rule prevents..." premise. If you are right that Andy's rule creates a contradiction then the only people who'll agree with your argument are the ones that already agree that Andy is wrong. Pointless.

2. I see no reason why you can't make a "flurry attack" then a "natural weapon attack" then a "flurry attack". When you make a "flurry attack" you are "using flurry of blows". If mixing them up is possible then pointing that out serves no purpose except as pointless nitpicking on the "first the primary attacks, then secondary natural attacks" explanation.

3. I don't see how the same argument wouldn't apply equally to two-weapon fighting, or even to iterative attacks from BAB. (See my previous post.)

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

No, it is 3.5. So is the MM Centaur example. I think one of the devils also has natural attacks mixed with it's manufactured weapon attacks, but if I recall that stat block was in error about something.

Marilith demon:

Attack: Longsword +25 melee (2d6+9/19–20) or slam +24 melee (1d8+9) or tail slap +24 melee (4d6+9)
Full Attack: Primary longsword +25/+20/+15/+10 melee (2d6+9/19–20) and 5 longswords +25 melee (2d6+4/19–20) and tail slap +22 melee (4d6+4); or 6 slams +24 melee (1d8+9) and tail slap +22 melee (4d6+4)

Horned Devil:

Attack: Spiked chain +25 melee (2d6+15 plus stun) or claw +24 melee (2d6+10) or tail +24 melee (2d6+10 plus infernal wound)
Full Attack: Spiked chain +25/+20/+15 melee (2d6+15 plus stun) and bite +22 melee (2d8+5) and tail +22 melee (2d6+5 plus infernal wound); or 2 claws +24 melee (2d6+10) and bite + 22 melee (2d8+5) and tail +22 melee (2d6+5 plus infernal wound)

EDIT:

The error is that the horned devil tail is a primary natural weapon (see Attack), but is treated as a secondary natural weapon in the full attack.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Horned Devil...

There's the SRD critter with multiple secondary natural attacks I failed to find.

The error is that the horned devil tail is a primary natural weapon (see Attack), but is treated as a secondary natural weapon in the full attack.

Is that an error?

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.

 

[IcyCool]

Is that an error?

The error is in the second attack string which is all natural attacks. They list the Tail with an attack bonus and damage bonus of a secondary natural weapon when it should be a primary one.

 

[billd91]

The error is in the second attack string which is all natural attacks. They list the Tail with an attack bonus and damage bonus of a secondary natural weapon when it should be a primary one.

I don't think that's an error. In that listed attack string, the primary attack comes from the claws. Any attack form after that requires the secondary penalty.
I suppose they could have had a second natural weapon attack string with the tail as the primary attack, but then I would fully expect the claws to have the secondary attack bonus.

By the way, they do the same thing with the Marilith and her tail slap, the wyvern and it's talons and bite, the minotaur and it's gore, and probably more.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I don't think that's an error. In that listed attack string, the primary attack comes from the claws. Any attack form after that requires the secondary penalty.

Why? There's no explicit limit that you can only have one primary natural weapon. In fact:

Attack: ... If the creature uses natural attacks, the natural weapon given here is the creature’s primary natural weapon. If the creature has several different weapons at its disposal, the alternatives are shown, with each different attack separated by the word “or.” A creature can use one of its secondary natural weapons when making an attack action, but if it does it takes an attack penalty, as noted in the Full Attack section below.

Full Attack: ... The first entry is for the creature’s primary weapon, with an attack bonus including modifications for size and Strength (for melee attacks) or Dexterity (for ranged attacks). A creature with the Weapon Finesse feat can use its Dexterity modifier on melee attacks. The remaining weapons are secondary, and attacks with them are made with a –5 penalty to the attack roll, no matter how many there are.

So, either the tail (including the marilith's tail) should be a secondary natural weapon in the attack routine, or it shouldn't take the secondary penalty in the full attack routine.

It can't be both.

I choose to go with "It's correct on the attack line, and some creatures have multiple primary natural attacks." This is backed up by, say, the Babau demon:

Attack: Claw +12 melee (1d6+5)
Full Attack: 2 claws +12 melee (1d6+5) and bite +7 melee (1d6+2)

He's certainly got two primary natural weapons - they're both claws, certainly, but casting Magic Fang on him is only going to improve one of them.

Going the other way - "Creatures only have one primary natural attack, and the Attack line is often wrong" - is certainly understandable, but breaks down, I think, when other rules are examined.

By the way, they do the same thing with the Marilith and her tail slap

Noted above.

the wyvern and it's talons and bite

Similarly, the wyvern has three primary natural weapons - sting, talon, and bite - and two secondary - wings.

Either it should take the secondary weapon penalty on its talon and bite attacks on a normal attack, or it shouldn't take them on its full attack. The rules don't really allow both.

the minotaur and it's gore, and probably more.

Actually, the minotaur is completely correct. Thank goodness for small miracles!

Attack: Greataxe +9 melee (3d6+6/x3) or gore +9 melee (1d8+4)
Full Attack: Greataxe +9/+4 melee (3d6+6/x3) and gore +4 melee (1d8+2)

The minotaur has a single primary natural attack, the Gore. When used in conjunction with manufactured weapons - like the axe - it's treated as secondary (-5 AB, 0.5x Str bonus).

 

[Hypersmurf]

Actually, the minotaur is completely correct. Thank goodness for small miracles!

No, it isn't.

The damage should be 1d8+6, not 1d8+4, on an Attack with the Gore - Str bonus x1.5 for a sole natural attack.

1d8+2 as a secondary attack is correct.

-Hyp.