Mixing manufactured and natural attacks.

[panaikhan]

Hi.
My DM and I are at a difference of opinion, and we are wondering if the Forum can set us straight.

My Warforged Juggernaut has a BAB of 9. According to the rules, that gives it iterative attacks with weapons.
Now, the Warforged standard attack (slam) is considered a natural attack, and armour spikes can be used as a light weapon. I also have the 'second slam' feat

I think I should be able to do the following:
Slam (+9), Spikes (+4), Second Slam (+4) - using my first slam as my primary attack.

My DM thinks it should be:
Spikes (+9), Slam (+4), then it gets wierd.
the Feat says "second slam at -5 to your base attack" which would make another Slam (+4), but DM thinks it should be (-1) because the first Slam was only at (+4).

Are either of us correct, or is it a mixture of the two?

[Gwendol]

The base attack bonus is +9.

[Khatoblepas]

If you're using a manufactured weapon as well as your natural attack, your attack routine would be:
Spikes (+9), Spikes (+4), Slam (+4), Second Slam (+4)

Reason being that natural weapons used after a full attack routine are always classed as secondaries, not as primaries. Second Slam is a secondary natural weapon, it gets -5 your BAB just as normal, not -10 as your DM would suggest (natural weapons always use your full BAB to calculate their attack bonus, not your iterative BAB). Multiattack can reduce the secondary penalty to -2, but I think manufactured weapons always get precident over natural weapons.

[Drelua]

I could be wrong, but I think you'd attack normally with the armour spikes and then use the slams as secondary natural attacks, taking the -5 penalty for that and another -5 for you second slam, bringing you BAB for that attack down to 4/-1 for your slams, as your DM said, and you'd only apply half your strength to damage. Of course, that would become 7/2 with multiattack.

Can anyone back me up on that, or do I have it wrong?

[Godskook]

If you're using a manufactured weapon as well as your natural attack, your attack routine would be:
Spikes (+9), Spikes (+4), Slam (+4), Second Slam (+4)

This is the correct way to parse those attacks.

[panaikhan]

If you're using a manufactured weapon as well as your natural attack, your attack routine would be:
Spikes (+9), Spikes (+4), Slam (+4), Second Slam (+4)


I like this option :smallbiggrin:
So I use my full attack with my Spikes, THEN add the natural Slam attack as a secondary, and get a 'second' secondary (not a tirtiary) because of "second slam"?
I wonder if two-weapon fighting is worth it with armour spikes :smallamused:

[Gwendol]

The armor spikes are off-hand weapons, so yes it could help a little. Doesn't change the 1/2 STR bonus to damage though.

[Khatoblepas]

I like this option :smallbiggrin:
So I use my full attack with my Spikes, THEN add the natural Slam attack as a secondary, and get a 'second' secondary (not a tirtiary) because of "second slam"?
I wonder if two-weapon fighting is worth it with armour spikes :smallamused:

Not really. You can wield a glaive or something and only use the armor spikes if you need them, you don't need TWF for that.

TWF is useful if you've got a source of bonus damage or effects. Stormguard Warrior is cool, as is Soul Eater. Two negative levels on every attack? Sure.

If you're just Power Attacking, Improved Multiattack can let you have your natural weapons at your full BAB, but for that, you need a third natural weapon. Take Jaws of Death. Everyone loves Jaws of Death. Then your attack routine would be:

Glaive (+9), Glaive (+4), Slam (+9), Second Slam (+9), Bite (+9)

It'd take three feats, though, which is lame as heck. On the plus side, think of how much you'd save with an amulet of natural weapons and a Battlefist!

But yes, there's no such thing as a tertiary natural attack.

[Keld Denar]

The armor spikes are off-hand weapons, so yes it could help a little. Doesn't change the 1/2 STR bonus to damage though.

Armor Spikes are not offhand weapons. They can be, and usually are, used as offhand attacks, but no weapon is by default an offhand attack, because offhand attacks ONLY happen when you TWF. If it is the only manufactured weapon you are attacking with, how can it be an offhand?

[Gwendol]

Ah, missed the "or" in the description and got it mixed up with the description of shield bash attacks. Carry on.

[Keld Denar]

I'm not even convinced that a shield is always an offhand. I know what it says, but it isn't consistent with the rest off the rule set. How can a weapon always be a offhand, even if it is the only weapon you might be attacking with in a round. There is no such thing as an offhand attack outside if the rules for TWF. If you aren't using the TWF combat option, you can't have an offhand.

[LTwerewolf]

I like this option :smallbiggrin:
So I use my full attack with my Spikes, THEN add the natural Slam attack as a secondary, and get a 'second' secondary (not a tirtiary) because of "second slam"?
I wonder if two-weapon fighting is worth it with armour spikes :smallamused:

Specifies i believe in the monster manual that all natural attacks that are not your primary are secondary unless stated as tertiary(these are few and far between). Your feat specifically states it as a secondary slam. The fact that your first slam also changed to a secondary does not affect it in this case.

[Urpriest]

Not really. You can wield a glaive or something and only use the armor spikes if you need them, you don't need TWF for that.

TWF is useful if you've got a source of bonus damage or effects. Stormguard Warrior is cool, as is Soul Eater. Two negative levels on every attack? Sure.

If you're just Power Attacking, Improved Multiattack can let you have your natural weapons at your full BAB, but for that, you need a third natural weapon. Take Jaws of Death. Everyone loves Jaws of Death. Then your attack routine would be:

Glaive (+9), Glaive (+4), Slam (+9), Second Slam (+9), Bite (+9)

It'd take three feats, though, which is lame as heck. On the plus side, think of how much you'd save with an amulet of natural weapons and a Battlefist!

But yes, there's no such thing as a tertiary natural attack.

I don't really get what the glaive is for here. The Slam and Bite don't have reach.

[LTwerewolf]

I don't really get what the glaive is for here. The Slam and Bite don't have reach.

I think he was just picking an arbitrary weapon to throw in there, and didn't take reach into account?

[Keld Denar]

Specifies i believe in the monster manual that all natural attacks that are not your primary are secondary unless stated as tertiary(these are few and far between). Your feat specifically states it as a secondary slam. The fact that your first slam also changed to a secondary does not affect it in this case.

There is no such thing as tertiary natural weapons. There are primary and there are secondary. In the presence of a manufactured weapon or UAS, any primary weapons become secondary (assuming they are still usable). Secondary stay secondary. Extra attacks at a penalty usually reference your BAB to determine where that attack happens (TWF, Flurry, Rapid Shot, etc). They never ever reference secondary or iterative attacks as a reference point.

Check out mine and Solo's miniguide on natural attacks on the min/max boards. I'd link it, but it's hard to link from a phone...

[Khatoblepas]

I don't really get what the glaive is for here. The Slam and Bite don't have reach.

Eh, it's an automatic reflex when armor spikes come up, sorry. I meant it to give the character reach, not that they had to USE it all the time, since they can use their armor spikes as a primary weapon too. After all, if you've got two hands free, might as well fill it with something useful. You can take AoOs with the glaive, your primary attacks with the spikes. Not sure why I called the iterative attacks glaive instead of spike, though. I might just have glaives on the brain.



Check out mine and Solo's miniguide on natural attacks on the min/max boards. I'd link it, but it's hard to link from a phone...

This one? (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=10994.0)

[Keld Denar]

This one? (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=10994.0)

Yup. Hmmm, I need to add some material to that guide...

[Deophaun]

Another option, which might be better depending on how you've focused your resources (perhaps not in this case), is to use the spikes as an off-hand weapon. In this case, your attack routine would be Slam (+5), Slam (+5), and Spikes (+5).

It's definitely a more effective routine at lower levels with a TWF feat.

[Drelua]

Now I'm confused, why doesn't the -5 penalty from the Second Slam feat apply? It says in the description that:
The second slam uses your highest attack bonus with a -5 penalty and I haven't seen any reason for that penalty not to apply.

[Deophaun]

Now I'm confused, why doesn't the -5 penalty from the Second Slam feat apply? It says in the description that: and I haven't seen any reason for that penalty not to apply.
You're right, it does apply. I was assuming both slams were primaries, when the second slam feat makes it a secondary.

So, that makes the routine with the off-hand completely terrible. (+5 slam, +0 slam, +5 spikes)

[Andezzar]

You're right, it does apply. I was assuming both slams were primaries, when the second slam feat makes it a secondary.

So, that makes the routine with the off-hand completely terrible. (+5 slam, +0 slam, +5 spikes)It is not terrible you may want to reread the description of second slam.

The second slam uses your highest attack bonus with a –5 penalty, and deals your normal slam attack damage.

So it is +9 Manufactured weapon, +4 manufactured weapon, +9-5=+4 Slam as secondary natural attack, +9-5=+4 Secondary Slam

[Drelua]

So, just to clarify, it would be what I said in the first place? Well that's new.:smalltongue:

I'd suggest taking Multiattack instead of TWF then; that way it's the same penalty but only on your slams, and you get one more attack with your spikes. With multiattack that would be 9(spike)/7(slam)/4(spike)/2(slam) then right?

As an aside, I've been wondering for a while, what happens if you try to use TWF with two manufactured weapons at the same time as multiple natural attacks? I've read Urpriest's monster guide and Keld Denar's natural attack handbook (I think), but all I know for sure is that the natural attacks would be treated as secondary.

I imagine it would be something like a -2 penalty to all attacks, and an additional -2 for the natural weapons (with multiattack). I'm guessing that if you had, say, BAB +10 with armour spikes, a Dwarven Boulder Helmet (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/weapons/weapon-descriptions/helmet-dwarven-boulder) and two claws, for example, your attacks would be made at BAB +8/8/6/6/3/3 for the spikes/helmet/claw/claw/spikes/helmet, but the rules are pretty thin on this from what I've seen.

Edit:
It is not terrible you may want to reread the description of second slam.

So it is +9 Manufactured weapon, +4 manufactured weapon, +9-5=+4 Slam as secondary natural attack, +9-5=+4 Secondary Slam

Yes, but the secondary natural attack penalty should also apply to both slams, should it not? I don't see any rules saying it shouldn't. The -5 (or -2) is a penalty to your attack roll, not to your BAB. I don't see how the sentence you quoted has anything to do with that.

[Urpriest]

So, just to clarify, it would be what I said in the first place? Well that's new.:smalltongue:

I'd suggest taking Multiattack instead of TWF then; that way it's the same penalty but only on your slams, and you get one more attack with your spikes. With multiattack that would be 9(spike)/7(slam)/4(spike)/2(slam) then right?

Nope. The second slam is also a secondary natural weapon, and clocks in at -2 from highest BAB, so 9(spike)/7(slam)/7(slam)/4(spike) is correct.


As an aside, I've been wondering for a while, what happens if you try to use TWF with two manufactured weapons at the same time as multiple natural attacks? I've read Urpriest's monster guide and Keld Denar's natural attack handbook (I think), but all I know for sure is that the natural attacks would be treated as secondary.

I imagine it would be something like a -2 penalty to all attacks, and an additional -2 for the natural weapons (with multiattack). I'm guessing that if you had, say, BAB +10 with armour spikes, a Dwarven Boulder Helmet (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/weapons/weapon-descriptions/helmet-dwarven-boulder) and two claws, for example, your attacks would be made at BAB +8/8/6/6/3/3 for the spikes/helmet/claw/claw/spikes/helmet, but the rules are pretty thin on this from what I've seen.

That's exactly what it would be. TWF just adds -2 to all attacks. Beyond that, it's exactly the same as using a single manufactured weapon with your natural weapons.

[Drelua]

Nope. The second slam is also a secondary natural weapon, and clocks in at -2 from highest BAB, so 9(spike)/7(slam)/7(slam)/4(spike) is correct.

But shouldn't the -5 from the Second Slam feat still apply?


That's exactly what it would be. TWF just adds -2 to all attacks. Beyond that, it's exactly the same as using a single manufactured weapon with your natural weapons.

Hooray, now I can make my DM throw books at me if I ever get to play my pouncing Catfolk Rogue! :smallbiggrin: I don't think he'll like my Amulet of Mighty Fists with speed on it very much...

[Keld Denar]

Read TWF very very carefully. Unlike Flurry or Rapid Shot or Whirling Frenzy, the penalties for TWF only apply to the main hand and offhand attacks, of which martial attacks are neither. So BAB +9 with TWF and Multiattack and Second Slam would be:

+7 mainhand primary iterative
+7 offhand
+2 mainhand secondary iterative
+7 secondary first slam
+7 secondary second slam

If he had Imp TWF, there would be another +2 offhand attack in there.

Do note that while there are no rules that explicitly state it, a humanoid makes slam attacks with it's arms. No humanoid statblock in any MM includes a creature making a slam attack with both of its hands full. Think of it like a blunt claw attack, if you will.

EDIT: The -5 stated in the Second Slam feat is the normal -5 from a secondary natural attack and would be reduced to -2 by Multiattack.

[Darrin]

That's exactly what it would be. TWF just adds -2 to all attacks. Beyond that, it's exactly the same as using a single manufactured weapon with your natural weapons.

Not all attacks. TWF incurs a -2 penalty to your primary attacks and your off-hand attacks. That -2 penalty doesn't actually apply to secondary natural attacks.

[Drelua]

Oh wow, that's even better! I'm not sure I like the idea of being a lightly armoured catfolk with a massive 10 pound helmet though...:smalltongue:

[Urpriest]

But shouldn't the -5 from the Second Slam feat still apply?



As others have corrected me, TWF only applies a penalty to main-hand and off-hand attacks, so natural weapons would not have any extra penalty.

As for Second Slam, you can either interpret it as a secondary natural attack, or as some other bizarre thing. If the latter, it won't be affected by Multiattack, and it will always simply be at -5 from your highest attack bonus. If the former, the -5 becomes a -2 with Multiattack.

[Drelua]

As others have corrected me, TWF only applies a penalty to main-hand and off-hand attacks, so natural weapons would not have any extra penalty.

As for Second Slam, you can either interpret it as a secondary natural attack, or as some other bizarre thing. If the latter, it won't be affected by Multiattack, and it will always simply be at -5 from your highest attack bonus. If the former, the -5 becomes a -2 with Multiattack.

It seems pretty clear to me that the -5 penalty was meant to work like an iterative attack, hence the BAB +6 requirement. If it was meant to be a secondary attack, they probably would have said so, and wouldn't have said that it 'deals your normal slam attack damage'.:smallconfused: (Edit) I'd call the -5 from Second Slam an untyped penalty that stacks with others, I must be missing how it would become immune to other penalties.

[Urpriest]

Broadly, the issue with interpreting Second Slam as a pseduo-iterative is that then you start wandering into the magical land of Rapidstrike and everything breaks down. For example, if it's supposed to behave like an iterative, then why do you also get your normal iteratives with a manufactured weapon? Why is it based on your highest attack bonus in general, and not on your highest attack bonus with slam?

Interpreting it either way you run into the fact that the designers almost certainly had better ways to phrase it.

[Drelua]

Broadly, the issue with interpreting Second Slam as a pseduo-iterative is that then you start wandering into the magical land of Rapidstrike and everything breaks down. For example, if it's supposed to behave like an iterative, then why do you also get your normal iteratives with a manufactured weapon? Why is it based on your highest attack bonus in general, and not on your highest attack bonus with slam?

Interpreting it either way you run into the fact that the designers almost certainly had better ways to phrase it.

I'm not seeing the problem with Rapidstrike, given that Second Slam requires you to be Warforged, and Rapidstrike requires you to be one of several types,none of which are construct. There probably is a way to be both that I don't know about, but I'd say there's a pretty good chance the designers didn't know about it either. I'd say they just tried to do two the roughly same thing with two separate feats. The wording on both feats in regards to the penalty is rather similar, after all.

[Andezzar]

Yes, but the secondary natural attack penalty should also apply to both slams, should it not? I don't see any rules saying it shouldn't. The -5 (or -2) is a penalty to your attack roll, not to your BAB. I don't see how the sentence you quoted has anything to do with that.No, it says highest attack bonus -5 not attack bonus of secondary natural attacks -5.

[Tyndmyr]

I'm not even convinced that a shield is always an offhand. I know what it says, but it isn't consistent with the rest off the rule set. How can a weapon always be a offhand, even if it is the only weapon you might be attacking with in a round. There is no such thing as an offhand attack outside if the rules for TWF. If you aren't using the TWF combat option, you can't have an offhand.

In support of this interpretation, does not dual shield fighting use one shield as a main weapon and one as an offhand?

[Drelua]

No, it says highest attack bonus -5 not attack bonus of secondary natural attacks -5.

Actually it says highest attack bonus with a -5 penalty. Explain to me how this means there can't be any other penalties? :smallconfused:

[Andezzar]

I was paraphrasing earlier but even with your wording nothing changes

The Feat does not say that the slam attack granted by it is a secondary natural attack. It simply is an attack at the highest attack bonus with a -5 penalty, which can only be used if you used a slam attack in your full attack action. Whether that normal Slam attack was a primary or secondary natural attack is irrelevant.

[Drelua]

I was paraphrasing earlier but even with your wording nothing changes

The Feat does not say that the slam attack granted by it is a secondary natural attack. It simply is an attack at the highest attack bonus with a -5 penalty, which can only be used if you used a slam attack in your full attack action. Whether that normal Slam attack was a primary or secondary natural attack is irrelevant.

Yes, I agree with all of that. What I was arguing is that the penalty for secondary natural attacks should still apply when the slam is secondary, which all natural attacks are in a round when you also attack with a manufactured weapon, as I understand it. Other people seemed to be saying this penalty should not apply, and I can see no reason this would be the case.

[Keld Denar]

It would ALWAYS be secondary, though. Its not primary, because a primary natural weapon has to be designated as such. It is not. So it is secondary, ALWAYS secondary, and always attacks at BAB-5 (-2 with Multiattack) and always gets 1/2 +Str like a secondary does.

Basically, look at it like this:

Is is a natural attack YES/NO?

If yes: Is it a primary attack YES/NO?

If no: It MUST be a secondary natural attack, because that is the only other type of natural attack in the game. I seriously doubt that it has it's own special rules made up for it, especially when there are already rules in place that explain it's properties perfectly. Occam's Razor.

[Drelua]

So, it's made at the same penalty as the normal slam attack that all warforged have, -5? Why would their only natural attack be secondary?I was under the impression that when you have a single natural attack, it's always primary. I guess it depends on whether you interpret it as a second attack with one slam or a second slam attack. It looks to me like it must be the former, working in much the same way as Rapidstrike. Your interpretation does not seem to be simpler than mine.

[Deophaun]

So it is +9 Manufactured weapon, +4 manufactured weapon, +9-5=+4 Slam as secondary natural attack, +9-5=+4 Secondary Slam
You aren't including the -4 penalty from TWF. That makes my initial sequence terrible.

Read TWF very very carefully. Unlike Flurry or Rapid Shot or Whirling Frenzy, the penalties for TWF only apply to the main hand and offhand attacks, of which martial attacks are neither.
Not true. See the Rules of the Game on mixing unarmed strikes and natural weapons (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070403a).

[Urpriest]

I'm not seeing the problem with Rapidstrike, given that Second Slam requires you to be Warforged, and Rapidstrike requires you to be one of several types,none of which are construct. There probably is a way to be both that I don't know about, but I'd say there's a pretty good chance the designers didn't know about it either. I'd say they just tried to do two the roughly same thing with two separate feats. The wording on both feats in regards to the penalty is rather similar, after all.

I'm saying that it causes similar issues to those that Rapidstrike causes, due to its poor wording, not that their interaction is the problem.

In any case, the feat specifies the attack is at -5 from the highest attack, so RAW it cannot have any penalties that the highest doesn't.

[Drelua]

I'm saying that it causes similar issues to those that Rapidstrike causes, due to its poor wording, not that their interaction is the problem.

Oh, that makes much more sense. My bad. Still, the wording seems pretty clear to me on both.


In any case, the feat specifies the attack is at -5 from the highest attack, so RAW it cannot have any penalties that the highest doesn't.

Yes, and the highest is also secondary when you're attacking with manufactured weapons. Unless you mean the highest attack including manufactured weapons, and I don't see why that would be the case. All it says is that the attack has a penalty, that doesn't say to me that it can't have a different penalty. Surely Power Attack would still apply a penalty with the slam. This isn't Shield Master (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/shield-master-combat---final) we're talking about. :smallamused:

Now, I'm not saying you're wrong, because frankly I still don't even understand why Second Slam would default to being a secondary natural attack.

[Keld Denar]

So, it's made at the same penalty as the normal slam attack that all warforged have, -5? Why would their only natural attack be secondary?I was under the impression that when you have a single natural attack, it's always primary. I guess it depends on whether you interpret it as a second attack with one slam or a second slam attack. It looks to me like it must be the former, working in much the same way as Rapidstrike. Your interpretation does not seem to be simpler than mine.
A warforged normal first slam is primary when used alone. If you just walk up to someone and hit them with your slam, it is primary. If, however, you use any non-iterative weapon in conjunction with your slam, the slam always becomes secondary, according to the rules in the MM for natural weapons. If you gain any other natural attacks as a warforged, your main slam would always be the primary (except as above) and any and all natural attacks gained thereafter would be secondary. So Second Slam and Jaws of Death and any other abilities or feats that grant a 'forged more natural attacks would always assign those attacks as secondary. This is unlike Pathfinder, where a character can have more than one set of primary natural attacks..


Not true. See the Rules of the Game on mixing unarmed strikes and natural weapons (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070403a).

When Skip's RotG articles contradict RAW, RAW wins. UASs are wierd. They are natural attacks EXCEPT for the fact that they can be used to make iterative attacks. This is evidenced by the fact that you can NOT cast Magic Weapon on an UAS (unless the recipient is a monk), while Magic Fang DOES work on a non-monk UAS. Then there is the fact that there is an item called a Fang Ring, which gives Improved Natural Attack(Unarmed Strike). Skip is wrong on this one, and sadly, it's not the first time he's ever been wrong when discussing the rules.

[Andvare]

It is a good thing that the creators of D&D made such a simple and easy to understand rules set.
And that the few rules that were a mess, were fixed by the creators of Pathfinder.

[Drelua]

A warforged normal first slam is primary when used alone. If you just walk up to someone and hit them with your slam, it is primary. If, however, you use any non-iterative weapon in conjunction with your slam, the slam always becomes secondary, according to the rules in the MM for natural weapons. If you gain any other natural attacks as a warforged, your main slam would always be the primary (except as above) and any and all natural attacks gained thereafter would be secondary. So Second Slam and Jaws of Death and any other abilities or feats that grant a 'forged more natural attacks would always assign those attacks as secondary. This is unlike Pathfinder, where a character can have more than one set of primary natural attacks.

So basically, this whole argument hinges on whether the extra attack from Second Slam is another natural weapon or another attack with the pre-existing natural weapon? If that's the case, I can't see anything conclusive either way, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.:smallsmile:

Also, what do you mean when you say 'non-iterative'? Do you mean a natural weapon since they don't have iteratives, or something other than an iterative with that specific weapon.:smallconfused:

[Deophaun]

When Skip's RotG articles contradict RAW, RAW wins. UASs are wierd.
These articles give magic items, spells, ACFs, and PrCs, used by TO and PO builders without anyone complaining that they are not RAW. If they can do that, then they can talk about base mechanics and still be RAW.

[Keld Denar]

Durrr, you caught me typing fast on my lunch break. I meant iterative weapon, not non-iterative.

I guess that it is kinda open-ended like that. I figured it more to be like a slam with your other hand, which I think is the most likely interpretation. I wasn't really thinking that it was attacks with the same slam, which gets into awkward Rapid Strike territory. Large sized constructs get 2 slam, one with each arm. I figured that this feat allows Warforged to emulate their larger kin.

EDIT:

These articles give magic items, spells, ACFs, and PrCs, used by TO and PO builders without anyone complaining that they are not RAW. If they can do that, then they can talk about base mechanics and still be RAW.
I never said it wasn't. I said that if there is any conflict between what Skip writes and the rules published in a game book, those rules trump him. Just the way something in the PHB might trump something published in a non core source. It's called Primary Source, and you can find all the gory details on it in the errata file (which trumps everything).

[Drelua]

Durrr, you caught me typing fast on my lunch break. I meant iterative weapon, not non-iterative.

I guess that it is kinda open-ended like that. I figured it more to be like a slam with your other hand, which I think is the most likely interpretation. I wasn't really thinking that it was attacks with the same slam, which gets into awkward Rapid Strike territory. Large sized constructs get 2 slam, one with each arm. I figured that this feat allows Warforged to emulate their larger kin.

I guess I can see that, looking more closely at the feat. 'Deliver a second slam' seems to be the really ambiguous part. I really wish designers would look at something before it gets published and ask themselves, 'could this be interpreted in multiple different ways'? If yes, clarify it!

Edit: Yay, I'm a barbarian! Hm, that's an odd thing thing to be happy about... :smalltongue:

[Andezzar]

You aren't including the -4 penalty from TWF. That makes my initial sequence terrible.Since when do we iclude two manufactured weapons? I was under the impression tha chartacter had one manufactured weapon a slam attack and the feat Second Slam.
The penalties for Two weapon Fighting do not apply since the character does not use a weapon in his off-hand.

[Deophaun]

I never said it wasn't. I said that if there is any conflict between what Skip writes and the rules published in a game book, those rules trump him. Just the way something in the PHB might trump something published in a non core source. It's called Primary Source, and you can find all the gory details on it in the errata file (which trumps everything).
And if Primary Source actually worked that way, no one could play any class or use any spell except those in the PHB, because the language of the PHB limits you to just those on its list. The rules for weaponlike spells in Complete Arcane would be non operative, and a host of other things would break.

Fortunately, Primary Source just says that sources only deal in their area of expertise, and when they stray outside that area, they are trumped by the more 'expert' source. So, if the PHB starts talking about monsters, and it goes against what's in the MM, the MM, being the expert in the field, trumps it. Of course, if the MM says something about a fire elemental that goes against what a source that deals exclusively with a fire elemental says, that other source wins.

[Urpriest]

Unless you mean the highest attack including manufactured weapons, and I don't see why that would be the case.

...it's the attack with the highest bonus. If you're going by RAW, then there isn't any other way to rule it. There's nothing to suggest that sentence refers to a preexisting slam attack. In fact, the feat says you're making a full attack which includes a slam attack, implying the creators were expecting other attacks (likely manufactured) in that full attack, and they still chose the phrase highest attack bonus.

[Drelua]

...it's the attack with the highest bonus. If you're going by RAW, then there isn't any other way to rule it. There's nothing to suggest that sentence refers to a preexisting slam attack. In fact, the feat says you're making a full attack which includes a slam attack, implying the creators were expecting other attacks (likely manufactured) in that full attack, and they still chose the phrase highest attack bonus.

...Or that they were considering the Jaws of Death feat. Or that when they said attack bonus, they meant BAB. I'm pretty sure I've seen exactly that mistake before. What I'm trying to say is that there are multiple ways to read that feat. The way you're reading it would seem to mean that any bonus to your highest attack would apply to your Second Slam, like Weapon Focus or an enhancement bonus, because as I understand it, your attack bonus is simply the number you add to your d20 roll.

Honestly, saying your way is the only way just comes across as arrogant and in no way helps you make a point. There are multiple possible interpretations, and from my perspective yours doesn't make much sense. It's already been agreed that the feat is ambiguous anyway, so this is about interpretation not RAW. Besides not every rule can be interpreted in only one way that is RAW.

I'm getting tired of this argument, I really don't think it's accomplishing anything but frustrating people. Let's just drop it before anyone says something they'll regret.

[panaikhan]

Wow. this thread really kicked off :smalleek:

If I can throw some clarifications out here to help people decide.
The Character has 5 levels of Juggernaut: Armour Spikes do 1D8 damage.
The Character has a Clawed BattleFist for 1D8 damage.
The Character has an elemental graft, that heats up 'held' weapons (like the Battlefist) to do 1D6 fire damage.

If second slam means I attack with my off-hand, it will only do 1D4 (plus 1D6 fire), though the BattleFist description (Enhances Slam Damage) is vague anyway.
The Character also has levels of Artificer, so is likely not to have anything in or on the offhand in case things need to get 'buffy'
Finally, where is this 'rapidstrike', and what types can use it? The Character is likely to be an Outsider (subtype Living Construct) just before going Epic

[Keld Denar]

Take a look at Magic of Incarnum. A lot of the totemist soulmelds are phrased the same way. They don't come out and say "this is primary", and "that is secondary". They use the same "highest attack bonus", and "highest attack bonus -5" wording.

Just further proof that most of the devs at WotC who wrote the later books don't even know how natural attacks work. Why not just use the game terms given to you in the MM?

EDIT:
It should be thus, assuming a +9 BAB:

Spikes +9
Slam +4
Slam +4

Plus any relevant applicable modifiers like magical enhancements and Str.

Rapid Strike is not available to outsiders. Plants, Aberrations, Elementals, Dragons, and I think maybe Magical Beasts, but not Outsiders, Constructs, or (Monsterous) Humanoids.

[Darrin]

If second slam means I attack with my off-hand, it will only do 1D4 (plus 1D6 fire),


The second slam attack can't be an off-hand attack. It doesn't even mention the TWF rules. The rules for natural attacks and TWF are kind of separate, and don't really interact.

(However... there's nothing in the rules that specifically forbids a natural weapon being used with TWF for your first primary attack or first off-hand attack. But there *is* a rule against using a natural weapon more than once per round, so you'd only get one primary and/or one off-hand attack with a natural weapon.)



though the BattleFist description (Enhances Slam Damage) is vague anyway.


Holy metal rocks, that's an understatement. The text on Battlefist causes my brain to implode at non-euclidian angles.



Finally, where is this 'rapidstrike', and what types can use it? The Character is likely to be an Outsider (subtype Living Construct) just before going Epic

Draconomicon p. 73. It requires your creature type to be aberration, dragon, elemental, magical beast, or plant type. Taking just Rapidstrike allows you to take a pair of natural attacks (such as two slams, although I'm not sure how this would interact with Second Slam) and make one extra attack with one of those weapons with a -5 penalty. Improved Rapidstrike gives you the equivalent of iterative attacks with your pair of natural weapons. Since they're not actually called iterative, primary, or secondary attacks, it creates some rules complications when you start mixing in TWF, off-hand, secondary, etc.

Off the top of my head, I don't recall an easy way for a construct to qualify for Rapidstrike without taking on some heavy LA or jumping through a bunch of template shennanigans. However... the "Corrupted by the Abyss" template from Expedition to the Demonweb Pits (3.5!) would change you to aberration, and it has no printed level adjustment. (Unfortunately, it's way too powerful to call it "LA +0".)

[panaikhan]

The second slam attack can't be an off-hand attack. It doesn't even mention the TWF rules. The rules for natural attacks and TWF are kind of separate, and don't really interact.

Sorry. To clarify, I meant the hand without the battlefist on it.


Off the top of my head, I don't recall an easy way for a construct to qualify for Rapidstrike without taking on some heavy LA or jumping through a bunch of template shennanigans. However... the "Corrupted by the Abyss" template from Expedition to the Demonweb Pits (3.5!) would change you to aberration, and it has no printed level adjustment. (Unfortunately, it's way too powerful to call it "LA +0".)

Heh. That just happens to be the module we are playing at the moment...