[PF] Alchemist - Natural Weapons / Unarmed Strikes?

[Luckmann]

I apologize for the title if it is confusing, I couldn't come up with anything else.

I am not good when it comes to the combat rules of 3.5 or Pathfinder, so I have this question; If my Alchemist has claw or bite attacks, do they count as Natural Weapons or Unarmed Strikes?

I ask this because I've been thinking about (another) Ratkin Alchemist, using the Internal Alchemist, Vivisectionist and Chirurgeon archetypes (which amazingly don't overlap in their replacements).

Ratkin adds a 1d4 Bite attack, while Feral Mutagen would add two 1d6 Claw attacks and a 1d8 Bite attack. Internal Alchemist allows Improved Critical (Unarmed Strike), Improved Unarmed Strike, Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike) and Stunning Fists to be taken as discoveries.

I am sure you can see where I'm going with this. The caveat is that the descriptions of Feral Mutagen and Ratkin doesn't specify if the added attacks count as Unarmed or Natural or Somethingelseentirely attacks.

It would be interesting to unload two claws and two bites at the same time as a rabid, steroid-pumped bipedal rat, if it could be consistently improved as I leveled.

[faus7rav3n]

As far as I know, you can make 1 attack with each natural weapon per round. So if you have 2 Claws and a Bite. You'd get 1 Claw, 1 Claw, 1 Bite. Your bite damage would go up from the Mutagen, but you wouldn't/shouldn't gain a second bite from the Mutagen effect.

I want to say Imp. Unarmed Strike treats your unarmed strikes as if they were weapons and thus follow the BAB table in addition to preventing the AoO. Natural Attacks technically don't fall into this.

However were I DM I would likely say that Natural Weapons count as unarmed (b/c officially you aren't holding a weapon), if you made a Full-Attack Action with just your claws at the requisite BAB scores, you couldn't make a bite. Alternately you could make a Full Attack Action of 2 claws and a bite at their proper penalties (I think each subsequent Natural attack suffers a -5 to Atk).

To make your Natural Attacks better you would need several things. Imp. Natural Attack raises your Natural Attack Dmg by 1 size Category. Also increasing your size a step would help and anything that effectively treats your Natural Weapons as a size category larger is also good. The Eberron Main Book has some good info on this since Shifters have claws. Also the Monster Manuals have Natural Attack info/feats for monsters.

On a side note...I'm getting a very Master Splinter vibe from this concept. Sounds like fun! Good luck!

[Keld Denar]

Here, read this: Natural Weapons and You - A Miniguide. (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=10994.0)

I helped write it. If you have any questions, just ask.

In general, UASs are natural weapons EXCEPT for the fact that they follow the iterative rules that manufactured weapons do instead of the normal natural weapon rules.

Since UASs don't really occupy any part of your body, they wouldn't inhibit you from making any of your natural attacks. Since your UAS is an "iterative weapon", it is automatically made primary. All of your natural attacks then become secondary natural attacks and follow all of the rules therein.

If you had a BAB of +6, your attack routine would be thus:
+6 UAS/+1 UAS/+1 Claw/+1 Claw/+1 Bite
naturally adjusted for Str, feats, size, Multiattack, etc.

Any questions?

[Infernalbargain]

I am not good when it comes to the combat rules of 3.5 or Pathfinder, so I have this question; If my Alchemist has claw or bite attacks, do they count as Natural Weapons or Unarmed Strikes?

Natural attacks.


Ratkin adds a 1d4 Bite attack, while Feral Mutagen would add two 1d6 Claw attacks and a 1d8 Bite attack. Internal Alchemist allows Improved Critical (Unarmed Strike), Improved Unarmed Strike, Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike) and Stunning Fists to be taken as discoveries.

Those feats would not improve your natural attacks. They would improve your unarmed attacks which Keld describes correctly.


It would be interesting to unload two claws and two bites at the same time as a rabid, steroid-pumped bipedal rat, if it could be consistently improved as I leveled.

They are non-iterative. So if you want more nat attacks you'll have to go about acquiring more. However, as Keld describes on a FRA you may choose to treat your nat attacks as secondary attacks in order to also get your normal iterative attacks. This is where those feats would come into play if you fight unarmed.

[Luckmann]

Here, read this: Natural Weapons and You - A Miniguide. (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=10994.0)

I helped write it. If you have any questions, just ask.

In general, UASs are natural weapons EXCEPT for the fact that they follow the iterative rules that manufactured weapons do instead of the normal natural weapon rules.

Since UASs don't really occupy any part of your body, they wouldn't inhibit you from making any of your natural attacks. Since your UAS is an "iterative weapon", it is automatically made primary. All of your natural attacks then become secondary natural attacks and follow all of the rules therein.

If you had a BAB of +6, your attack routine would be thus:
+6 UAS/+1 UAS/+1 Claw/+1 Claw/+1 Bite
naturally adjusted for Str, feats, size, Multiattack, etc.

Any questions?Only one. What do you mean "iterative"? I feel so stupid for asking this.

Also, the natural attacks from the Alchemist's Feral Mutagen discovery counts as "Primary attacks" and uses full BAB.


Feral Mutagen: Whenever the alchemist imbibes a mutagen, he gains two claw attacks and a bite attack. These are primary attacks and are made using the alchemist’s full base attack bonus. The claw attacks deal 1d6 points of damage (1d4 if the alchemist is Small) and the bite attack deals 1d8 points of damage (1d6 if the alchemist is Small). While the mutagen is in effect, the alchemist gains a +2 competence bonus on Intimidate skill checks.And while I think that it "makes sense" that you'd only get to use 2 claws and 1 bite attack, does it explicitly say so anywhere? Because otherwise, by RAW, shouldn't it be +6 UAS/+1 UAS/+6 Claw/+6 Claw/+6 Bite/+1 Bite?

Because otherwise I could consider a human instead of a Ratkin, but then I'd lose the whole sadistic "Feral rat" approach. :smalltongue:


[...]

On a side note...I'm getting a very Master Splinter vibe from this concept. Sounds like fun! Good luck! That hadn't even occured to me. It may actually not be a bad idea to just dip into Alchemist for Mutagen/Feral Mutagen as a Monk. :smallbiggrin:

[Keld Denar]

Read the link. Its explained there.

Iterative attacks are those attacks that you make with manufactured weapons based on your BAB. If you look at the advancement table for say...the fighter, at level 15, it says +15/+10/+5. These are iterative attacks. You make them in descending order from highest to lowest. Primary, Secondary, Tertiary, Quaternary, etc. Each is a nearly identical iteration of the previous, just at a lower bonus. Hence, iterative attacks.

Natural attacks don't make iterative attacks. You get ONE attack with each weapon, regardless of BAB. If you have a BAB of +0, you get Claw/Claw/Bite. If you have a BAB of +100, you still only get Claw/Claw/Bite.

As it states in the link I linked, in the presence of a weapon that makes iterative attacks (such as Unarmed Strikes), ALL primary natural weapons become secondary natural weapons and follow the rules there in. This would supercede what it says on the ability because the ability assumes you are ONLY attacking with natural weapons.

EDIT: Your example
It would be +6 UAS/+1 UAS/+1 CLaw/+1 Claw/+1 Bite. You make your iterative attacks (+6 UAS/+1 UAS) and then you add on all of your natural weapons, except that you convert them from primary to secondary (so they would suffer a -5 to hit and only get +1/2 Str).

Its in the rules for natural weapons and manufactured weapons in the SRD. Its also quoted in the link I linked, directly from the SRD.

[Luckmann]

Well guess my reading comprehension roll was low. Thanks a lot for the help. :smallsmile:

[Retech]

So basically natural weapons are freebies?

[Keld Denar]

Kinda. They can't be "occupied" by anything else. You can't hold a sword and make claw attacks in the same round with that hand, for example. Also, if you already have a bite, gaining another bite isn't beneficial. You just take the largest damage die between the two options and use that. Thus, the more natural attacks you have, the harder is generally is to get more. The nice thing about natural weapons is that they are finessable, but always get 1:1 Power Attack and that no matter how many of them you have, they are always made at the same attack bonus as your secondary iterative attack (unless you have Multiattack, then they are even better!).

Person_Man has a pretty good guide around here on how to aquire most of the good ones.

[DeMouse]

How bout trying this.

Get the two extra arms discovery.

get feral mutagen

2 Claws on the two extra arms and hold a weapon in your real arms.

you will be able to full attack for the normal hits from a weapon based on your bab, PLUS two claws and a bite.

You could also take the tentacle Discovery for extra natural attacks on top of this.

If you can find some way to add an extra two claws then you would be better off attacking with 4 claws and a bit because then they will be primary attacks (full str, full BAB). Instead of changing to secondary because you are using a weapon (BAB-5 without multiattack feat, BAB -2 with multiattack and only adding 1/2 STR). Multiclassing as a Dragon diciple would be one way to do it. if you go the first option take the multiattack feat but if you go the second you can skip it.

[Keld Denar]

Well, if you had 4 claws on 4 arms, you could still make your full round of Unarmed Strikes, then all 4 claws. That would be the best option, especially with Power Attack.

[DeMouse]

Well, if you had 4 claws on 4 arms, you could still make your full round of Unarmed Strikes, then all 4 claws. That would be the best option, especially with Power Attack.

You if you had 4 claws you would be better off not using unarmed strikes as they would change the claws and bite form primary to secondary.

Taking 2 levels in alch for the discovery feature and then using feats to get all the discoveries would let you take levels in monk or fighter which might make it worth more.

[Luckmann]

Oh, oh, I have another question in case someone is still monitoring this thread.

So, if I'm unarmed, I can use all my Natural Attacks freely. Fair enough. But I'm working on an entirely different concept now.

Half-Orc. Magus. Brawler.
High strength, as high armor that is allowed without spellcasting penalties.

Gauntlets count as unarmed weapons. They are virtually indistinguishable from Unarmed fists and I will have to take Improved Unarmed Strike anyway. The notable difference is of course that there can be enchanted Gauntlets and such. At first, my idea was to use Knuckles, but strangely, I get spellcasting penalties with Knuckles, but not with Gauntlets.

The question is thus; Using an "Unarmed Weapon" other than just fists (Gauntlets), do I get all my Natural Attacks? I was thinking about taking, as a Hexcrafter Magus, the Prehensile Hair hex (1d3 natural attack) and the Nails hex (1d3 natural attack), combined with the Toothy alternative racial trait (1d4 natural attack) of Half-Orcs.

Eventually I'd pick up the Eldritch Claws feat, turning all my natural attacks Magic & Silver. Maybe talk to the DM if I can be allowed to use Arcane Pool to apply Vorpal to my fists/gauntlets, crushing the heads of my opponents. Alternatively, making my fingernails Vorpal, because hey, why the hell not? :smalltongue:

Edit: (Unfortunately, it specifically says that the Toothy attack is Piercing, not Blunt/Piercing/Slashing like a regular bite attack, which means that I won't be getting the satisfaction of biting someone's head off with Vorpal teeth).

[Keld Denar]

If you are using your UAS, it doesn't interfere with your ability to make natural weapon attacks. If you are using gauntlets, however, which are related to your unarmed strike, but are an actual weapon which actually covers your hand, you could not make any type of claw attacks with that hand, just the same as you couldn't if that hand were wielding a longsword.

[Luckmann]

If you are using your UAS, it doesn't interfere with your ability to make natural weapon attacks. If you are using gauntlets, however, which are related to your unarmed strike, but are an actual weapon which actually covers your hand, you could not make any type of claw attacks with that hand, just the same as you couldn't if that hand were wielding a longsword.

Dammit. I suspected as much. I was hoping I'd get away on a technicality along the lines of "Unarmed weapons are still unarmed".

It's a matter of enchantments. I think I can use Arcane Pool on whatever weapon I'm "wielding", which could including Fists or Claws just as well as a Longsword or a Scimitar. But never actually getting something with a real enchantment on my attacks is... I'm just not sure if it's worth it, especially since I'd end up -having- to spend Arcane Pool points enchanting my Fists just to make them magic.

[Keld Denar]

Necklace of Natural Attacks or an Amulet of Mighty Fists work. Both are rather expensive, but do work.

[Manflesh]

Jumping on REALLY late to this party, but I was searching for the same question and noticed a problem with what everyone has been saying. You can't strike with an unarmed attack AND a claw attack with the same hand. Your unarmed attacks are still considered weapon attacks and are no different from actual swords or gauntlets when reading the rule. Just look at the wording of the rule in the Pathfinder Core Rulebook:


You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack. For example, you cannot make a claw attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a longsword. When you make additional attacks in this way, all of your natural attacks are treated as secondary natural attacks, using your base attack bonus minus 5 and adding only 1/2 of your Strength modifier on damage rolls. Feats such as Two-Weapon Fighting and Multiattack can reduce these penalties.

So yes, you could still do a flurry of blows attack with your unarmed strikes and turn your primary bite attack into a secondary attack. But you can't flurry of blows AND do two claw attacks AND do a bite attack. The rules simply don't allow it.

[SGNenets]

Jumping on REALLY late to this party, but I was searching for the same question and noticed a problem with what everyone has been saying. You can't strike with an unarmed attack AND a claw attack with the same hand. Your unarmed attacks are still considered weapon attacks and are no different from actual swords or gauntlets when reading the rule. Just look at the wording of the rule in the Pathfinder Core Rulebook:



So yes, you could still do a flurry of blows attack with your unarmed strikes and turn your primary bite attack into a secondary attack. But you can't flurry of blows AND do two claw attacks AND do a bite attack. The rules simply don't allow it.

Not true. As others have already mentioned, UAS doesnt have to use hands. They can be kicks (heck, just look at Miko), headbutts, body slam, tail slap (if you have them), etc.

EDIT: And isnt this kinda thread necromancy?

[Manflesh]

Not true. As others have already mentioned, UAS doesnt have to use hands. They can be kicks (heck, just look at Miko), headbutts, body slam, tail slap (if you have them), etc.
So under this train of thought, every character has potentially anywhere from 3-4 extra attacks a round (hitting with a sword, then punching off-hand, kicking twice, and also using a headbutt with the proper negatives included, of course)?

[Ravenica]

You can't make an uas when you attack with a weapon, your arms legs and head do not count as natural weapons

[Manflesh]

Why not? They count as light weapons.

[Ravenica]

You just answered your own question

[Manflesh]

If I carry a weapon in one hand and have an off-hand weapon (ie light weapon), I can attack with both, per the rules. An unarmed strike counts as a light weapon.

[Ravenica]

but it does not count as a natural attack

look you seem to be in need of more advice than I'm willing to give so I'm just going to link you to wizards break down on unarmed attacks so that you can learn it on your own

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070327a

[Keld Denar]

A humanoid character (and basically anyone with 2 arms) only has one offhand. If you have a shortsword in your offhand, and you make attacks with it, you can't also make offhand UASs. If you didn't make offhand attacks with that shortsword, you COULD kick with your UAS.

Even though your UAS basically has hundreds of striking surfaces, it is really only one weapon. This is how UASs differ from other natural attacks. If you have 13 clawed limbs, you could make 13 secondary natural attacks. You can't get 2 kicks, 2 punches, 2 knee strikes, 2 elbow strikes, a head butt, and a shoulder slam all in one round unless your BAB was high enough that you had 10 attacks per round (which, since BAB caps at 20 and only grants 4 attacks, primary, secondary, tertiary, quadranary, is impossible).

It's possible to wield what...12 weapons at once? 13? Complete Scoundrel has boot blades, knee blades, elbow blades, wrist blades, and another source has a weighted cloak. You could wield all of these at once, but you couldn't strike with all of them simply because you don't have enough attacks to. You pick a couple, assign them to the attacks you are normally granted via BAB and feats and other abilities, and that is your attack routine for the round. UASs follow these rules.

[Manflesh]

@Ravenica: I don't think you understood where my point was going, but thank you for the link. It doesn't answer all of my questions, since this thread was addressing unarmed/natural attacks in Pathfinder, not DnD proper. Amusingly, it still gave me some clearer ideas that may actually still help prove my original point anyway.

@Keld Denar: I completely understand what you are saying. I guess my only question left is, does it explicitly say you are allowed only one off-hand attack no matter what? Or is the wording for off-hand attacks only phrased with the assumption that the attacker would only use their arms? Afterall, a four-limb fighter with three off-hand weapons should get three off-hand attacks, correct? Are three extra weapon wielding arms drastically different from one extra arm and two "light weapon" legs?

The answer is ultimately unnecessary since I think the idea is ridiculous, even if I ended up being right. Just like I think it's silly for a character to be allowed two unarmed "kick" strikes in the same round as two claw attacks and a bite. Part 2 from the link Ravenica posted gives me hope that I'm correct. Read:

A creature can choose to treat its unarmed attacks as its primary attacks and its natural weapons as secondary attacks. (This method is normally used to add weapon attacks to a natural attack routine.) The creature must make all unarmed attacks with its primary limb, which prevents that hand from being used for a natural attack such as a claw or slam. It uses its full base attack bonus for the natural attack, gaining additional attacks as normal for a high base attack bonus, and adds its full Strength bonus on damage rolls. Of course, each of these attacks provokes an attack of opportunity if the target is unarmed (unless the creature has Improved Unarmed Strike). However, its natural weapons all become secondary attacks, taking the -5 penalty on attack rolls (or -2 with the Multiattack feat) and adding only half the monster's Strength bonus on damage rolls.
The article goes on to say that the attack process can be reversed, with the natural attacks being the primary and the unarmed attack being the secondary (and thus not relegated the primary limb, IE a punch), but you'd only be allowed one additional attack. --Okay, that makes sense. You can full attack with the natural weapons you have and sneak in one kick/headbutt at a severe negative. Groovy.

BUT, Pathfinder doesn't allow this choice. Anytime you mix your natural attacks with your weapon/unarmed attacks, your natural attacks automatically become secondary. And while it doesn't explicitly state this in PF, in 3.5, when your unarmed attacks are the primary attacks in a mix with your natural attacks as secondary, you can only have those unarmed attacks be with your arms.

Thus you can not have two claw attacks and two unarmed attacks in the the same round. I dunno, to me, this makes sense.

[Keld Denar]

That link is notoriously riddled with flaws. It is outright wrong about reversing the order. Per the SRD:


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.

No creature contains any exception to that. None. Not a single one ever printed in a WotC book. So...kinda a dumb exception.

One thing to note about UASs is that they are weird. They live in a duality between natural attacks and manufactured attacks. How I basically look at it is if you are questioning about how something affects an UAS, it is a natural weapon (unless you are a monk, then it is both). If you are, however, looking at how the UAS affects other things, it is a manufactured weapon. Things like spells and feats that modify natural weapons work on UASs, but when the UAS is wielded, it is treated as a manufactured weapon to determine how it attacks.

As a contrast to your last statement, I present non-handed weapons. If I attack with my armor spikes, do you think that that impacts my ability to make claw attacks the same way that holding a sword in that claw would? I don't think so. If I attacked with a mainhand armor spikes and an offhand weighted cloak, I am TWFing, but I haven't used my hands. If I have claw attacks, I should be free to use them the same as I can use a bite any time I don't have anything in my mouth or a gore as long as I don't have anything covering my horns. UASs, similarly, are essentially non-handed weapons. They CAN be made with hands, or they can be made with not-hands. If they aren't made with hands, then those hands should still be free to make claw attacks, the same as armor spikes allow.

And you are correct. A 4 armed creature, like a Xill, who had Imp UAS and Multiweapon Fighting could make 3 offhand attacks with his UAS. The number of attacks a creature is capable of is dependent on how many limbs he has, but it is not dependent on how many limbs he uses. He could make 4 UAS attacks (1 main hand and 3 offhand, but not actually using his "hands") and then make 4 secondary claw attacks. A marilith could make 6 UASs (1 mainhand and 5 offhand), then 6 slams and a tail slap. The UASs would follow the MWFing rules and the claws would follow the natural attack rules for using secondary natural weapons.

[Manflesh]

What you quoted from the SRD doesn't contradict the "reverse rule", considering that referenced rule only pertains to unarmed attacks, not "manufactured weapon" attacks (I don't consider the two terms synonymous). Regardless, that portion of the article doesn't carry any significance to me within this discussion.

I think before this continues any further, a few things need to be clarified first.

A) The purpose of this thread and subsequently my line of comments are meant to be in relation to rules retooled by Paizo's Pathfinder gaming system. While I completely understand that it is a third-party modification of Wizard's DnD 3.5 system, I will always view Paizo rule breakdown as a primary source over any of the decade-worth of rule material supplemented by Wizards, for the purpose of this thread discussion. Thus please understand that further debating which Wizards online source is most credible will quickly turn into semantics for me. Furthermore, if we are continuing to reference 3.5 rules, I would appreciate them being presented in relation to Pathfinder rules rather than as proof by itself.

B) While I believe this may prove to be the crux difference in our opinions, there needs to be something said between difference of realism vs rule balancing. In my retorts, my opinions towards what I termed as "silly" or "ridiculous", stems from my viewpoint of game balance. Do I think there are ways you could rationally breakdown the logistics to how any attack should logically work? Yes, but as we all know, DnD has never been designed to be anywhere close to 100% realistic. Look no further to our attack system that lacks any sort of real called shot or the simplified armor and hit point system, and you'll see that the crucial core mechanics of the game are far from realism. For me, this doesn't mean that you can't apply logic to rules, just do it within context.

C) This more because Ravenica's post seemed to have an overall tone of annoyance, but I am not pressing this topic to troll or waste time talking in circles with no purpose. I'm a long time gamer that has recently revisited 3.5 via Pathfinder and I'm reimmersing myself in its tangled web of rules. I thank you for taking the time to clarify and debate with me on this topic (or anyone else that chooses to join in on the madness).

WITH THAT out of the way, my counter points. :smallsmile:

I'm unaware on how the articles on Wizard's main site are flawed, but if they are, it's ironic considering they were posted to clarify the rules. Considering they are on Wizard's main site, I still take them with some respect. Regardless, you didn't appear to condemn the main sentence I was keyed-in on, that being the one that stipulates when you mix unarmed attacks with natural, your unarmed becomes your primary and they, as a result, have to be with your primary limb AKA your arms/hands. This contradicts your statement that "UASs" can universally be applied to non-handed attacks.

With respect to your non-handed weapon example, yes I do believe those attacks inhibit you from using your claws. Since while the weapon being wielded isn't directly attached to the hands, I firmly believe your arms are needed to attack with such weapons effectively. The idea of trying visualize your example list of weapons in concert with claws, bite, and gore would be awkward looking to say the least, especially within the confines of one round. That's purely looking at it from a logistics perspective.

My interpretation of why natural attacks exist game mechanic-wise, is to offer an alternative form of attack that has its benefits and drawbacks from the traditional way of doing so (Nice bonus for multiple attacks in one round, generally lower damage). While the logistics for combining natural with other forms of attack are there (kinda), they don't balance well. The language I interpret from reading articles mentioned already above in addition with Pathfinder's rules lend to the intention of hindering a player's ability to being allowed to get away with 5 attacks at a low level.

To me, attacking with your full unarmed strikes and then using only a bite attack and not two claw attacks in addition, is fair, logical, and balanced. In addition, I believe that I have shown enough text to back that up.

[Ravenica]

ok I have returned and must confess a derp, I didn't notice the PF tag on the thread, and thus assumed the discussion was 3.5 related (as is more common on this board) thusly I quoted 3.5 source. This was an error on my part, partly due to lack of sleep. I was not "annoyed" however I certainly can see how my comment could be construed as such.

Now to clarify exactly what you mean.

Are you asking;
if you can make an unarmed full attack and then strike with a weapon as an offhand attack?

There isn't a whole lot of raw support for combining unarmed attacks and weapon attacks so it's pretty much DM territory to decide. Personally I go back to 3.5 rules where paizo failed to port one over so I'd say sure, but it would be pointless and you'd suffer the dual wielding penalties just like using natural attacks in your full attack with either weapons or unarmed strikes. Natural weapons are poorly defined and again I go back to the 3.5 defining (covered in the partner article to the one I linked) in that they are attacks specifically called out as such and that UAS is not a natural attack, hence why you get iteratives based on BAB with it, but not naturals.

on the subject of uas and "free hands" for natural claw attacks there is no RAW covering it, SKR cited "The intent was to prevent you from making a full attack sequence with your natural attacks and a bunch of unarmed strikes by specifically defining your undefined unarmed strikes as conveniently different limbs than your natural attacks. Which is exactly what you're trying to do.-skr" but his citations are "RAI" and not raw, and honestly that makes it DM territory






Sources (some posted simply for easier access during any further discussion)
Monk unarmed strike regarding full hands (may apply to ability to use claw attacks, at least for monks) Core book pg 58
At 1st level, a monk gains Improved
Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk’s attacks may be
with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk
may make unarmed strikes with his hands full. There is
no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking
unarmed. A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus
on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes.

The IUS feat does not seem to apply to the thread so I deleted the quote

Entire attacking section on unarmed strikes. (left out damage and turning into lethal damage as they aren't really relevant to the conversation) core book page 182
Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches,
kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee
weapon, except for the following:
Attacks of Opportunity: Attacking unarmed provokes
an attack of opportunity from the character you attack,
provided she is armed. The attack of opportunity comes
before your attack. An unarmed attack does not provoke
attacks of opportunity from other foes, nor does it provoke
an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe.
An unarmed character can’t take attacks of opportunity
(but see “Armed” Unarmed Attacks, below).
“Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character’s or
creature’s unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A
monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat,
a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature
with natural physical weapons all count as being armed
(see natural attacks).
Note that being armed counts for both offense and
defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity).

Natural Attacks section. Pg 182,184
Natural Attacks: Attacks made with natural weapons,
such as claws and bites, are melee attacks that can be made
against any creature within your reach (usually 5 feet).
These attacks are made using your full attack bonus and
deal an amount of damage that depends on their type (plus
your Strength modifier, as normal). You do not receive
additional natural attacks for a high base attack bonus.
Instead, you receive additional attack rolls for multiple
limb and body parts capable of making the attack (as noted
by the race or ability that grants the attacks). If you possess
only one natural attack (such as a bite—two claw attacks do
not qualify), you add 1–1/2 times your Strength bonus on
damage rolls made with that attack.
Some natural attacks are denoted as secondary natural
attacks, such as tails and wings. Attacks with secondary
natural attacks are made using your base attack bonus
minus 5. These attacks deal an amount of damage
depending on their type, but you only add half your
Strength modifier on damage rolls.
You can make attacks with natural weapons in
combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and
unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for
each attack. For example, you cannot make a claw attack
and also use that hand to make attacks with a longsword.
When you make additional attacks in this way, all of your
natural attacks are treated as secondary natural attacks,
using your base attack bonus minus 5 and adding only 1/2
of your Strength modifier on damage rolls. In addition,
all of your attacks made with melee weapons and unarmed
strikes are made as if you were two-weapon fighting. Your
natural attacks are treated as light, off-hand weapons for
determining the penalty to your other attacks. Feats such
as Two-Weapon Fighting and Multiattack (see the Pathfinder
RPG Bestiary) can reduce these penalties.

[Manflesh]

on the subject of uas and "free hands" for natural claw attacks there is no RAW covering it, SKR cited "The intent was to prevent you from making a full attack sequence with your natural attacks and a bunch of unarmed strikes by specifically defining your undefined unarmed strikes as conveniently different limbs than your natural attacks. Which is exactly what you're trying to do.-skr" but his citations are "RAI" and not raw, and honestly that makes it DM territory I'm not up on rpg internet lingo and it seriously took me two minutes to google what exactly "Raw", "SKR", and "RAI" meant. :smallredface:

I never really cared about the the weapon unarmed combo rule call. It was just me exacerbating the problem I saw with abusing what isn't "RAW" with mixed attacks (Which is unfortunately a lot). But like you said, Pathfinder doesn't write a lot on some of their rules, so I'm comfortable with falling back on older 3.5 references if necessary. And your link helped solidify in my mind, why my interpretation of mixing natural and unarmed attacks is correct.