Ye olde classic unarmed strike/natural weapon question.

[IcyCool]

Hotbutton topic.

In our group (and all of the groups I've played in), if you are taking the -2 penalty to attacks from flurrying, then all attacks you make with that -2 penalty are part of your flurry. So that means any natural attacks you would want to take would be part of the flurry, and disallowed.

That's by no means the favored position though.

 

[glass]

Why would you wait a round?

Because it take a full attack to flurry, and you can't use natural weapons in a flurry. Once the flurry is over, you can use natural weapons again, but you have no actions left.

You must use a full attack action to gain iterative attacks from a high BAB. Can you make secondary natural attacks in a round where you make iterative attacks from a high BAB? Why wouldn't that require two full attacks?

Making natural attacks in addition to your full attack action would require to actions. Fortunately there is no restriction that prevents you making natural weapons attacks as part of your full attack. Unlike with FOB.


glass.

 

[Iku Rex]

Because it take a full attack to flurry, and you can't use natural weapons in a flurry. Once the flurry is over, you can use natural weapons again, but you have no actions left.

"A monk must use a full attack action to strike with a flurry of blows."

A (for example) fighter must use a full attack action to make multiple attacks due to a high BAB. (Special class abilities aside.) Do you disagree?

Why doesn't this fact prevent the fighter from making secondary natural attacks in the same round?

Making natural attacks in addition to your full attack action would require to actions. Fortunately there is no restriction that prevents you making natural weapons attacks as part of your full attack.

"Creatures do not receive additional attacks from a high base attack bonus when using natural weapons."

This does not prove that you can't make additional attacks from a high BAB in the same round as you're using natural weapons? Why not?

 

[Infiniti2000]

A (for example) fighter must use a full attack action to make multiple attacks due to a high BAB. (Special class abilities aside.) Do you disagree?

Why doesn't this fact prevent the fighter from making secondary natural attacks in the same round?

It doesn't because the rule on allowing natural weapon attacks is:

"Some creatures combine attacks with natural and manufactured weapons when they make a full attack."

Note that this is not a full attack + secondary natural weapons, it's a single full attack (action), combined. So, to combine the natural weapons with flurry, it makes a single full attack (Action), not a full attack following by more attacks. Thus, no natural weapons while flurrying.

 

[Iku Rex]

It doesn't because the rule on allowing natural weapon attacks is:

"Some creatures combine attacks with natural and manufactured weapons when they make a full attack."

Note that this is not a full attack + secondary natural weapons, it's a single full attack (action), combined. So, to combine the natural weapons with flurry, it makes a single full attack (Action), not a full attack following by more attacks. Thus, no natural weapons while flurrying.

It does not follow. Yes, it's a single full attack action. This full attack action includes a flurry of blows and secondary natural attacks. That does not mean that the secondary natural attacks must be part of the flurry.

Likewise, a full attack action can include both iterative attacks from BAB (must use full attack action to get) and secondary natural attacks (must use full attack action to get). Despite the fact that you don't get additional attacks from a high BAB "when using natural weapons".

 

[Infiniti2000]

That does not mean that the secondary natural attacks must be part of the flurry.

Of course it does. That's what "combine" means.

 

[starwed]

The word combine is more vague than that; it can for instance mean:

To assemble or join in a group: band, gang up, league, unite.

In any case, once a thread gets to the point where the definition of common words is argued over, I lose interest. A key point is whether the secondary natural attacks are part of the flurry of blows. They're clearly part of the same full attack action, but that doesn't necessarily imply that they're part of the flurry. However, interpreting that they're not would seem to leave the door open for any iterative attacks to also be separate from the flurry.

Show me the rule that explains how iterative attacks mix with natural attacks and much will be made clear. But I can't see anything in the SRD except "Creatures do not receive additional attacks from a high base attack bonus when using natural weapons" and "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."

 

[Iku Rex]

That does not mean that the secondary natural attacks must be part of the flurry.

Of course it does. That's what "combine" means.

Uh, no. It means that the secondary natural attacks must be part of the full attack action. Not part of the flurry.

Say you're combining iterative attacks from BAB with secondary natural attacks. (You agree this is possible.) You believe that the use of the word "combine" makes the iterative attacks "part of" the natural attacks and vica versa. Right? And yet for some reason you don't insist on applying the rules for iterative attacks from BAB to the secondary natural attacks and visa versa. Why not?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Uh, no. It means that the secondary natural attacks must be part of the full attack action. Not part of the flurry.

... and, hence, my Cleave isn't part of the WWA, and therefore can be made.

Why can you decide which attacks are part of a particular modification of a Full Attack in one case, and not the other?

After all, if the limits on FoB apply only to "the Flurry," there's no reason that the limits on WWA shouldn't only apply to "the Whirlwind."

 

[Infiniti2000]

Uh, no. It means that the secondary natural attacks must be part of the full attack action. Not part of the flurry.

So, you're arguing that the flurry is not part of the full attack action? How many full attack actions are made?

Say you're combining iterative attacks from BAB with secondary natural attacks. (You agree this is possible.)

Yes, but only if those iterative attacks are with a manufactured weapon and the secondary attacks are with (unused) natural weapons.

You believe that the use of the word "combine" makes the iterative attacks "part of" the natural attacks and vica versa. Right?

Not quite. They are both part of the full attack action, but not part of each other.

And yet for some reason you don't insist on applying the rules for iterative attacks from BAB to the secondary natural attacks and visa versa. Why not?

Not "for some reason", for the reason I quoted. I'll do so again, so you don't forget again: "Some creatures combine attacks with natural and manufactured weapons when they make a full attack."