Post/Author/DateTime	Post
tvar1 07-11-07, 05:52 PM	So if I have a 2-handed weapon and natural weapons (claws), can I use my claws as secondary attacks in a round when I use my 2-handed weapon for all my iterative attacks? At first my DM and I agreed that I would not be able to do this. We though that since my hands were being used that round for to wield the weapon that the claw would be unavailable, and that I would only be able to use my bite (yeah, I have one of those too). But I was thinking today that this might not be the case. Lets say I had a thrown weapon and quick draw. I would then be able to use one of my iterative attacks to throw a javelin or something and put my hand back on my 2-hander and continue using it. Switching from holding a 2-handed weapon with 1 hand to 2 hands (and vice-versa) is a free action right? So then wouldn't using a claw attack be allowed? Heck, why wouldn't both both claw attacks be allowed if changing the way a weapon is held is a free action. I could go from left hand, to both hands, to right hand. Is there a part of RAW I'm missing here? The FAQ doesn't seem to address this particular subject.
Kouk 07-11-07, 06:11 PM	There isn't really an "action" for putting a hand on or off a weapon, it is up to the DM. Generally people consider it a free action, though I don't think I would allow this because it is not much different than wanting to make a full attack with a greatsword and then Quick Drawing a dagger and taking another attack. You have to make your attacks alternating between your "hands" primary and secondary from order of highest BAB to lowest, so right hand, left hand, right hand, left hand until you run out of attacks (or left then right if you prefer). This would be both hands, both hands, left hand or something, or else I would just say you are not wielding the greatsword properly (your hand would be off it every second or so). You are dual wielding, or you aren't.
tvar1 07-11-07, 06:24 PM	it is not much different than wanting to make a full attack with a greatsword and then Quick Drawing a dagger and taking another attack. Well, if you have iterative attacks left, then sure. This is just like my javelin example. If you don't, then you can't take a dagger attack. Although you could use all your attacks with the greatsword, and then quick draw a dagger and do nothing with it, right? So lets say you don't have a dagger, but you have a secondary claw attack. What's wrong with attacking with it? You have to make your attacks alternating between your "hands" primary and secondary from order of highest BAB to lowest, so right hand, left hand, right hand, left hand until you run out of attacks (or left then right if you prefer). This would be both hands, both hands, left hand or something, or else I would just say you are not wielding the greatsword properly (your hand would be off it every second or so). You are dual wielding, or you aren't. What? I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. But TWF is very different from natural attacks, and you can't really use those rules here.
Kouk 07-11-07, 10:18 PM	Well, if you have iterative attacks left, then sure. This is just like my javelin example. If you don't, then you can't take a dagger attack. Although you could use all your attacks with the greatsword, and then quick draw a dagger and do nothing with it, right? So lets say you don't have a dagger, but you have a secondary claw attack. What's wrong with attacking with it? What? I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. But TWF is very different from natural attacks, and you can't really use those rules here. Now I'm confused. Yes, I will admit that natural weapons are not exactly the same as manufactured weapons. Once you start using a manufactured weapon to take advantage of a high BAB though, I would consider any natural weapons you use to be either primary or secondary weapons the same as if you had Improved Unarmed Strike and wanted to do this with a greatsword and your (improved) fist or other appendage (monks can attack with their whole bodies, but I am choosing to disregard the issue of Flurry for now).
ShinAkuma2 07-11-07, 10:28 PM	I would look at the Troglodyte...Its entry shows that it can use Club/Claw/Bite, or Claw/Claw/Bite. Once it uses one hand for a club attack, that limb is "used" as far as its natural weaponry goes, so it can't Club, then use 2 Claws. I'd rule the same way as far as 2 handers go: If you weild a two-handed weapon, your "arm" based natural weapons are not usable.
primemover003 07-11-07, 10:30 PM	This is covered in the FAQ D&D FAQ v.3.5 86 Update Version: 05/18/07 What happens when creatures use their natural weapons as secondary attacks along with a manufactured weapon? For example, lizardfolk have two claws that also serve as hands. What happens when they wield a onehanded weapon in one hand and nothing in the other? Do they lose both claw attacks in exchange for their attacks with the weapon? Wielding a manufactured weapon doesn’t prevent a creature from using all its natural weaponry, provided that the creature is using the full attack action and the additional natural weapons are free. The example lizardfolk can’t make a claw attack with the “hand” that holds its weapon, although it does get to attack with the weapon itself. But, if it’s using the full attack action, it can use its other claw as a natural secondary attack (–5 to attack rolls, half Strength bonus), and can also bite as a natural secondary attack. In effect, the lizardfolk is using its normal full attack routine with the manufactured weapon attack substituted for one claw attack. So in a like manner if you have a Two handed weapon your two claw attacks are used up for the round, but you're free to use your bite. Switching from a two handed grip to a one handed grip and switching the weapon from hand to hand in between natural attacks is cheesy...
dknight100 07-12-07, 12:02 AM	Well, if you have iterative attacks left, then sure. This is just like my javelin example. If you don't, then you can't take a dagger attack. Although you could use all your attacks with the greatsword, and then quick draw a dagger and do nothing with it, right? So lets say you don't have a dagger, but you have a secondary claw attack. What's wrong with attacking with it? I just have to ask - javelin example? iirc javelins ridiculously take a full round to throw, as they are a 2h thrown weapon.
RavenDrake 07-12-07, 01:31 AM	I just have to ask - javelin example? iirc javelins ridiculously take a full round to throw, as they are a 2h thrown weapon. I believe that's incorrect. Javalin's(like all weapons with a range increment) should be thrown one handed and be thrown in iterative attacks (with quickdraw). The passage on two handed weapons takeing a full round to throw is not related to normal throwing weapons, it refers only to throwing items that are not normally thrown, that is items without a range increment and other improvised thrown weapons.
Kouk 07-12-07, 09:45 AM	I would look at the Troglodyte...Its entry shows that it can use Club/Claw/Bite, or Claw/Claw/Bite. Once it uses one hand for a club attack, that limb is "used" as far as its natural weaponry goes, so it can't Club, then use 2 Claws. I'd rule the same way as far as 2 handers go: If you weild a two-handed weapon, your "arm" based natural weapons are not usable. Well said. This makes sense enough for me.
tvar1 07-12-07, 11:10 AM	Ok, so for the troglodyte and lizard examples, it seems that switching a weapon from one hand to the other to take advantage of the other claw attack is not intended. Though I still don't see anything other than the FAQ and examples in the MM that actually state this. Does anyone see anything in RAW that addresses it specifically? But it still seems that in the case of a 2-handed weapon, this might only mean that you must leave one hand (and the same hand) on it the whole time. But you still might have one hand free. In fact you must have a hand free for other things, since quick drawing weapons is still totally legal. You could quick draw and drop a dagger between every iterative attack if you wanted... Or, at the end of your iterative attacks, you could simply say that you are removing one hand from your 2-handed weapon if you wanted to threaten enemies with your claw rather than the weapon (that's an example with no feat required, in case that becomes a sticking point). My only point here is that it seems at least one hand must be free to do other things. Why would a natural attack be an exception to one of these things that the hand can do?
RavenDrake 07-12-07, 12:07 PM	But it still seems that in the case of a 2-handed weapon, this might only mean that you must leave one hand (and the same hand) on it the whole time. But you still might have one hand free. In fact you must have a hand free for other things, since quick drawing weapons is still totally legal. You could quick draw and drop a dagger between every iterative attack if you wanted... Or, at the end of your iterative attacks, you could simply say that you are removing one hand from your 2-handed weapon if you wanted to threaten enemies with your claw rather than the weapon (that's an example with no feat required, in case that becomes a sticking point). My only point here is that it seems at least one hand must be free to do other things. Why would a natural attack be an exception to one of these things that the hand can do? That's different. You can make an attack of opportunity with any weapon you have available, whether or not you attacked with that weapon during your turn. That includes natural weapons. That's completely different than saying you strike with a two-handed weapon and then let go of one end and use a claw attack. You may as well say you drop the weapon completely and use both claws if you're looking at it that way. When you use a manufactured weapon, the limbs that wield that weapon are taken up by that action. If you use a two-handed weapon then both of the limbs that hold the weapon are taken up in it's use. Just like both of the limbs wielding a two-handed weapon are unavailable for other manufactured weapon attacks during your turn, those same limbs are unavailable for natural weapon attacks during your turn. It shouldn't have to specifically come out and say "Oh, and if you use both hands to hold two-handed weapon then you absolutely can't use a claw or slam attack with those hands since they're, yknow, already being used."; it should be pretty well obvious.
tvar1 07-12-07, 12:18 PM	That's different. You can make an attack of opportunity with any weapon you have available, whether or not you attacked with that weapon during your turn. That includes natural weapons. That's completely different than saying you strike with a two-handed weapon and then let go of one end and use a claw attack. You may as well say you drop the weapon completely and use both claws if you're looking at it that way. Actually, you are pretty lenient then if you would allow a character to take an AoO with a claw that is holding a 2-handed weapon. Normally I would say that a natural weapon that is holding something isn't threatening because it isn't ready, just like a weapon in a sheath isn't threatening. If it was holding a 1-handed weapon, would you allow a player to drop the weapon and take an AoO with the claw? Normally dropping a weapon is a free action that can only be taken on one's turn. And, yes, if you follow my argument to its logical conclusion, I also thing that you could drop the 2-hander and take both claw attacks. But then you would be without your weapon and would have gimped yourself for the next round, so this is almost never a good idea. Incidentally, that is why I think the FAQ and MM never include attack routines like this: because it would hardly ever be advantageous to sacrifice your iterative attacks for 1 additional claw attack. It shouldn't have to specifically come out and say "Oh, and if you use both hands to hold two-handed weapon then you absolutely can't use a claw or slam attack with those hands since they're, yknow, already being used."; it should be pretty well obvious. I'm saying it's not obvious, and that the rules should say something about it. Here is another example: full attack with 2 handed weapon, cast a spell with somatic components as a swift action (let's say I had a quickened spell prepared). That's legal, right? So there is another example of something else a hand can do even though it was "used" for the full attack. Again, why is it that a natural weapon is an exception?
Kouk 07-12-07, 12:49 PM	Again, why is it that a natural weapon is an exception? Probably because it is very cheesy that all you have to do is find a race with natural claw weapons and you can get the full benefit of using a 2handed weapon and also get extra attacks on top of that. Even if it was legally possible, I think most DMs would rule against doing that. Tail or a Bite maybe... On the same token most DMs wouldn't let the Barbarian using a greatsword say he makes his full attacks and then uses his spiked gauntlets to follow up a few more times.
tvar1 07-12-07, 01:22 PM	Probably because it is very cheesy that all you have to do is find a race with natural claw weapons and you can get the full benefit of using a 2handed weapon and also get extra attacks on top of that. Obviously that's the whole point of having natural weapons to begin with, to attack with them. So I don't necessarily think it is cheesy. Presumably the natural weapons are "balanced" with LA and racial hit dice (or any other costs that attaining natural weapons incur). On the same token most DMs wouldn't let the Barbarian using a greatsword say he makes his full attacks and then uses his spiked gauntlets to follow up a few more times. Really? I would imagine that a Barbarian could take off-hand attacks with a spiked gauntlet much the same way he could with spiked armor. Of course, he would incur all the normal two-weapon fighting penalties (so he would have to declare he was doing this ahead of time, and have the required feats).
Kouk 07-12-07, 02:52 PM	Really? I would imagine that a Barbarian could take off-hand attacks with a spiked gauntlet much the same way he could with spiked armor. Of course, he would incur all the normal two-weapon fighting penalties (so he would have to declare he was doing this ahead of time, and have the required feats). Other people have that interpretation as well, however, what motivation would anyone have to not fight that way? People always argue how 2-handed weapons are superior to TWF do they not? How could that be if you were able to seamlessly combine the two?
Platstud 07-12-07, 03:08 PM	Obviously that's the whole point of having natural weapons to begin with, to attack with them. So I don't necessarily think it is cheesy. Presumably the natural weapons are "balanced" with LA and racial hit dice (or any other costs that attaining natural weapons incur). They are only balanced if you can't use them in addition to attacking with weapons.
dknight100 07-12-07, 04:52 PM	Other people have that interpretation as well, however, what motivation would anyone have to not fight that way? People always argue how 2-handed weapons are superior to TWF do they not? How could that be if you were able to seamlessly combine the two? The spiked gauntlets would not be able to be used for follow up attacks, as they are occupied with the sword. Skip has said that armour spikes can be used as an 'off-hand' weapon for someone with a 2 hander. While someone could potentially knee you with a spiked kneepad and swing a greatsword at you, its both unbalanced and a ridiculous mental image. that could never look cool. A good fix for all of this is Confused Jackal Mage's combat modes. It might take a reread to get your head around, but its a far better way than WotC's sometimes real, sometimes imaginery hands. And makes it easy to do things like fight with 2 spiked shields, which I'm so going to bust out on my players. They can be found here http://jackalmage.pbwiki.com/CombatModes The rest of his wiki is good too. I'm quite fond of the expanded unarmed combat rules, and the expanded speak language (except i only have 1 langauge in my current campaign. well, 1 that the players will have easy access to).
tarkin 07-12-07, 05:05 PM	The basic problem is that people think actions in rounds are consecutive. They are NOT. We roll them out consecutively because it is easier to do it that way, but they are SUPPOSED to be happening all throughout the entire round. That is if you have a BAB of 16 and two claws, you do NOT Second 1: Attack with BAB 16 Second 2: Attack with BAB 11 Second 3: Attack with BAB 6 Second 4: Attack with BAB 1 Second 5: Drop your right hand and Attack with first claw Second 6: Drop your left hand and Attack with second claw Instead it is: Seconds 1 through 6: During this entire 6 seconds you make lots of attacks with your weapon. Four of them are particularly good, and have a chance of hitting. The best is almost assured, using a BAB of 16, and the worst of those four only has a BAB of 1, but it is still good. WHOOPPS, the round is over. No time left to let go of your weapon and take your claw attacks. If you had "time left over" after making your 4 iterative attacks, then you could have made MORE iterative attacks End of round is END OF ROUND. Those four attacks take the ENTIRE round, not 'part' of it. Following the RAW (which I dislike, but it helps to point it out occasionally) if you even make a single attack with a Two handed weapon, you are forbidden from using that hand for anything else that round except additional iterative attacks.
tvar1 07-12-07, 06:24 PM	The basic problem is that people think actions in rounds are consecutive. They are NOT. Yes, I'm actually perfectly aware of this. In fact, I think that only bolsters my case. If one's iterative attacks were consecutive, and did span the whole round, I would probably agree that therefore ones hand was actually completely used up the whole round and couldn't do anything else. But, in fact, the iterative attacks are used in order to abstract the moves that are actually being done. There could be any number of reasons someone might want to momentarily take one hand off a 2-handed weapon, but the iterative attack system makes it seem like what you are actually doing is spending your whole round making 2, 3, or 4 swings, which is not the case. The fact that characters can obviously take their hand off their weapons is what makes it possible to do other things with that hand like the things I have mentioned: casting quickened spells with somatic components, quick-drawing other weapons, etc. How else would it be possible to do these things? And why are claw attacks not one of these things?
primemover003 07-12-07, 08:45 PM	It's a balance issue. You can only perform so many actions in a round. If you use a natural weapon like a clawlike hand to wield a weapon it is unavailable for a Natural attack... other options however aren't neccessarily precluded. A somatic gesture for a swift spell is far more simple than trying to slash with a claw. Pulling your hand off your greatsword to grab a potion of your Potion Belt (free action) is pretty simple too... however if you've taken all your allotted actions for the round you can only do so much, as even Free actions can be limited by your DM.
Captain_Kobold 07-12-07, 09:25 PM	As a quick aside, where does it say that Quickening a spell with somatic components allows you to use it whilst your hands are otherwise occupied? As to the main question, I think Tarkin nailed it down. Just to clarify tvar1, are you talking about taking one hand off the weapon to make a claw attack instead of a weapon attack as part of your normal iterative sequence? Or are you saying that taking a hand off the weapon somehow allows you the opportunity to make an additional meaningful strike that you couldn't have done had you retained full control of your weapon for the entire time? Or something else?
tvar1 07-12-07, 11:46 PM	Well, I can't really buy it being a balance issue... :) I mean, a theoretical creature with a gore, bite, tail slap, slam, tentacle, and sting could take all of those natural attacks in addition to a full attack with a 2-handed weapon. Saying that you can't take claw attacks because of balance doesn't really make sense to me. If anything, it seems more like an aesthetic issue: most people just can't seem to abide a character using his hands for multiple things in one round. And to clarify the situation with the quickened spell, here is my case: Dropping an item is a free action. I think any sane person would agree that taking one hand off of a 2-handed weapon is much like this action (in fact, perhaps even easier), and is therefore also a free action (though I will admit, this is a sticking point since "taking one hand off a 2-handed weapon" isn't specifically given an action type in the PHB). And casting a quickened spell is a swift action. So assuming you haven't used your swift action yet, you're good to go.
Kouk 07-13-07, 06:14 AM	Well, I can't really buy it being a balance issue... :) I mean, a theoretical creature with a gore, bite, tail slap, slam, tentacle, and sting could take all of those natural attacks in addition to a full attack with a 2-handed weapon. Right, they can take all those natural attacks in a round, but not also weapon attacks. How is it not a balance issue? You just gave that multi-appendaged creature more attacks. It is significantly easier to enchant a manufactured weapon by the way, and aside from the fact that many monsters have extremely high STR bonuses, a natural weapon is almost always inferior to a manufactured weapon when wielded by the same creature. 1d3 +2/x2 Claw damage, or 1d8 +2/19-20 x2 enchanted longsword damage? In most cases the trade is something like that.
RavenDrake 07-13-07, 11:11 AM	Right, they can take all those natural attacks in a round, but not also weapon attacks. Actually, it COULD do just that, provided that the limbs that those natural weapon's occupy was not already used in the round for the manufactured weapon routine. A creature with natural weapons, by taking a full attack action, can use thier normal manufactured weapon attack routine, plus any un-used natural weapons can then be added as secondary natural attacks. Well, partly at least. A gore and a bite both use the head, so few creatures have both, and I think any that have both use only one at a time. Same with Tail Slaps and Stings, both use a tail-like appendage, so you would generally have to choose one or the other. Unless, of course, you had two or more of the indicated limb. A hand(and it's requisite arm) that is used to weild a weapon in combat, however, is simply unavailable for any other use during your turn. You can't use it for somatic components(even if you are casting a Quickened spell), you can't manipulate objects with it(regardless of the action type or method needed). The hand is pressed into service for one activity in the round, thus it is unavailable to make claw attacks, slam attacks, unarmed strikes(though both they and slams could be made with other body parts) and the like. You can no more drop a two-handed weapon and make a claw attack than you could drop the two-handed weapon and quickdraw a shortsword and try to claim offhand attacks for two-weapon fighting.
tvar1 07-13-07, 01:02 PM	A hand (and it's requisite arm) that is used to weild a weapon in combat, however, is simply unavailable for any other use during your turn. You can't use it for somatic components(even if you are casting a Quickened spell), you can't manipulate objects with it(regardless of the action type or method needed). So you claim that my quickened spell example is actually not allowed? Can you find anything in the rules to support your case? You can no more drop a two-handed weapon and make a claw attack than you could drop the two-handed weapon and quickdraw a shortsword and try to claim offhand attacks for two-weapon fighting. Your TWF example is actually the best example I have seen provided of something that is clearly something that cannot be done by the rules. But I think the main reason for this is that two-weapon fighting refers to primary-hand and off-hand which seems to preclude a 2-handed weapon entirely. The only exception to this rule (that I know of) is a 2-handed weapon with spiked armor as an off-hand light weapon, but that's because armor spikes are a clearly spelled out example of something that can always be used as an off-hand weapon. Although actually, come to think of it, there doesn't seem to be any provision for how to apply TWF penalties to attacks that involve a 2-handed weapon (is it primary-hand or off-hand...?) except in the FAQ, which, as we all know, can be suspect.
tarkin 07-13-07, 05:44 PM	Hm. Let me try and explain this again. You still have a wierd idea about what combat is. Here is an accurate description of a combat round, for someone with a Bab of 6, fighitng using a two handed axe, that also has a tail attack and two claw attacks. We will call him Lizardman and his opponent Bloody. 1. Lizardman and Bloody warily move around, like the trained fighters they are (taking Dex bonus to AC). Lizardman starts a feint attack with his tail, Bloody sees it and moves his sword to intercept. Lizardman does not complete the attack (this is just one of the many jabs, not a real attack. These jabs are what let you take AoO's. If Bloody was spending his round drinking a potion or something, you could take one - or more with Combat Reflexes- and convert it to a real attack) Lizardman tries another feint with his axe, but Bloody does not fall for it. Lizardman laughs at Bloody, sends his tail in again (has NOT made an attack with it yet) while at the same time going forward with his Axe. Bloody sees the Axe, and tries to avoid it but fails to see the Tail. Lizardman decides to go for it and ... Rolls a d20 and gets a natural 20. This hits no matter what. Now his tail is no longer in play for regular attacks, he can only attack with it once. However, he can still feint with it, as these feints allow him take AoO's. 2. Several more feints, eventually Bloody does not see the Axe, coming and Lizardman has the opportunity again to convert a feint into a real blow. He rolls... a d20 and gets a nature 1. Miss. And he has used up his high BAB (6) from 6/1. Still has his 2nd main hand attack (1) 3. 4 more feints, and before Bloody fails to see a potential opening, so the Lizardman turns the feint into a real blow again. He rolls a 19 and hits. He has used up his last blow and the round is over. ---------- As you can see, the basic problem is you are thinking of a single attack as a short quick thing. NO. A single attack consists of multiple jabs. When the time is right, you convert a fake jab into a single blow. Attacks are not quick things, that you then wait around for. You spend the entire round trying to get your weapon just a hairsbreath away from your opponent. After you managage to succeed that, then you convert your fake jab into a real blow. While the attack itself takes an instant, the preparation for the attack takes a LONG time. You get yourself into a situation and are prepared to take advantage of it. There is not time to switch grips and then do the LONG thing that eventually results in a valid attack. Effectively it takes an ENTIRE round to make a secondary attack. The hand/claw etc. must be ready for the entire round. In several of the splat books, they give examples of a race that has a natural claw weapon. They specifically remind people that they can not use that hand to attack at all during the round. One example is the Skarn from Magic of the Incarnum.