CLAWLOCK attacks

[Tavaro]

I know this is a topic that has been covered before I looked under the warlock handbook thread just didn't see it.Playing a clawlock I have beast claw should I take beast strike feat for more dmg or with the beast claws is the dmg the same.Plus with beast claws I am 13 lvl I have a second attack with bab can I attack just with beast claws for the extra dmg or do I just get 1 attack with my claws.

[Kaje]

Natural weapons never give you iteratives based on bab.

[Red Fel]

I know this is a topic that has been covered before I looked under the warlock handbook thread just didn't see it.Playing a clawlock I have beast claw should I take beast strike feat for more dmg or with the beast claws is the dmg the same.Plus with beast claws I am 13 lvl I have a second attack with bab can I attack just with beast claws for the extra dmg or do I just get 1 attack with my claws.

Okay. Here's how it works. First, the Eldritch Claws feat. Now, the feat says you can deliver your EB as a melee attack, but doesn't specify what type. If it is a claw attack, however, which most people assume it is, "generally, a creature can make . . . one attack per claw[,] (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#naturalWeapons)" which would allow you two attacks with your ECs. Each EC attack deals (unarmed + Eldritch Blast) damage.

Now, here's where Beast Strike comes in. Beast Strike says that, when you make an unarmed attack, you may add your claw damage, which we have established is (unarmed + EB). So each of your unarmed attacks would actually deal (unarmed + unarmed + EB). Further, don't forget that in a full attack routine, you use your iterative attacks plus your natural weapons, here meaning your ECs.

So, with Beast Strike, you would have two unarmed attacks that deal (unarmed + unarmed + EB), and two claw attacks at -5 penalty (because they're secondary to your iteratives) that deal (unarmed + EB). Your total damage would be (6x unarmed + 4x EB).

In short: Beast Strike is absolutely a valuable feat here.

[Thurbane]

Natural weapons never give you iteratives based on bab.

There are two exceptions to this that I'm aware of (although neither apply to the OP):
- An animal companion with a single attack (such as a Wolf) gains a single iterative attack in lieu of being granted Multiattack.
- The Rapidstrike (and Improved Rapidstrike) feat allows iteratives with certain natural weapons.

[Troacctid]

Now, the feat says you can deliver your EB as a melee attack, but doesn't specify what type. If it is a claw attack, however, which most people assume it is, "generally, a creature can make . . . one attack per claw[,] (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#naturalWeapons)" which would allow you two attacks with your ECs. Each EC attack deals (unarmed + Eldritch Blast) damage.
What do you mean? It says pretty plainly that they are considered natural claw attacks and you get two of them.

[Necroticplague]

Okay. Here's how it works. First, the Eldritch Claws feat. Now, the feat says you can deliver your EB as a melee attack, but doesn't specify what type. If it is a claw attack, however, which most people assume it is, "generally, a creature can make . . . one attack per claw[,] (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#naturalWeapons)" which would allow you two attacks with your ECs. Each EC attack deals (unarmed + Eldritch Blast) damage.?
Errrrrr...

As a free action, you can form the energy of your eldritch blast into a set of claws extending almost an entire foot from your hands. While your eldritch claws exist you may make up to two claw attacks as natural weapons. You are automatically proficient with your eldritch claws. On a successful attack with an eldritch claw, you deal your normal amount of unarmed strike damage plus your eldritch blast damage. Once you form your eldritch claws they remain until just before the beginning of your next turn. You cannot use your normal eldritch blast ability while your eldritch claws exist. A monk may not use eldritch claws as part of her flurry of blows.

Outside of that minor nitpick, the analysis is spot on.

[Gruftzwerg]

So, with Beast Strike, you would have two unarmed attacks that deal (unarmed + unarmed + EB), and two claw attacks at -5 penalty (because they're secondary to your iteratives) that deal (unarmed + EB). Your total damage would be (6x unarmed + 4x EB).

In short: Beast Strike is absolutely a valuable feat here.

Yeah Beast Strike is to good to give up, but imho you got it wrong here:

When you use "Beast Strike" you make use of your "unarmed attack" routine and not your "Natural (Claw) Attack" routine. You don't get the 2x full BAB attack for claws when using Beast Strike. But on the other hand, "Beast Strike" is flurry-able and gets additional attacks from high BAB (as you stated).
And how did you came up that BS would give iterative attacks for offhand?

sidenote on topic: The best way to push clawlock dmg is monk2/warlock3/enlightened fist and to push monk unarmed dmg further with Monks Belt and the Sizing Weapon Ability on a Necklace of Natural Attacks. See my signature build "Almighty Claw of Malar" for more input and inspiration.

[Necroticplague]

When you use "Beast Strike" you make use of your "unarmed attack" routine and not your "Natural (Claw) Attack" routine. You don't get the 2x full BAB attack for claws when using Beast Strike. But on the other hand, "Beast Strike" is flurry-able and gets additional attacks from high BAB (as you stated).
And how did you came up that BS would give iterative attacks for offhand?
Making an attack with your claws, and making an attack with your unarmed strike, aren't mutually exclusive.


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. These secondary attacks do not interfere with the primary attack as attacking with an off-hand weapon does, but they take the usual –5 penalty (or –2 with the Multiattack feat) for such attacks, even if the natural weapon used is normally the creature’s primary natural weapon.
For these kinds of purposes, the Unarmed Strike would be a manufactured weapon (thus, why it gets iteratives). There's no such thing as an off-hand claw attack, only a claw attack where the claw is a secondary natural weapon.

[Gruftzwerg]

Making an attack with your claws, and making an attack with your unarmed strike, aren't mutually exclusive.
That was not what my argument targeted. I'll try to explain it better:
Beast Strike is an "unarmed attack" that lets you make use of your claw damage. It doesn't change your unarmed attacks into natural (claw) attacks who would get the 2x full BAB attacks.


For these kinds of purposes, the Unarmed Strike would be a manufactured weapon (thus, why it gets iteratives). There's no such thing as an off-hand claw attack, only a claw attack where the claw is a secondary natural weapon.

Beast Strike counts as manufactured weapon and gets additional attacks, that's right. But it doesn't count as natural claw attack. So, unless you are a monk (who can switch body parts per attack for free for no penalty and NO additional Attack!), you would need to use the off-hand claw attack as a (single) secondary attack at -5 (since the off-hand claw still counts as a natural weapon).

[Necroticplague]

That was not what my argument targeted. I'll try to explain it better:
Beast Strike is an "unarmed attack" that lets you make use of your claw damage. It doesn't change your unarmed attacks into natural (claw) attacks who would get the 2x full BAB attacks.
Beast Strike counts as manufactured weapon and gets additional attacks, that's right.But it doesn't count as natural claw attack
Indeed, an Unarmed Strike is not a claw attack, and Beast Strike does nothing to change that. That is, however, wholly irrelevant to the question of whether you can use an 2 claw attacks after using an unarmed strike.



. So, unless you are a monk (who can switch body parts per attack for free for no penalty and NO additional Attack!), you would need to use the off-hand claw attack as a (single) secondary attack at -5 (since the off-hand claw still counts as a natural weapon).
I'm not sure I follow why this would be true. There's no such thing as an off hand natural weapon attack. There's just the rules for using natural and manufactured together, which don't provide for any reason you'd only get one claw attack.

[Darrin]

- The Rapidstrike (and Improved Rapidstrike) feat allows iteratives with certain natural weapons.

Minor nitpick: The text for Improved Rapidstrike does not give you iterative attacks. It gives you extra attacks, but the text does not specify if they are primary, secondary, or something else. Just because an extra attack comes with a -5 penalty doesn't mean it's an "iterative" attack.

[Gruftzwerg]

Indeed, an Unarmed Strike is not a claw attack, and Beast Strike does nothing to change that. That is, however, wholly irrelevant to the question of whether you can use an 2 claw attacks after using an unarmed strike.



I'm not sure I follow why this would be true. There's no such thing as an off hand natural weapon attack. There's just the rules for using natural and manufactured together, which don't provide for any reason you'd only get one claw attack.

http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070403a
Rules of the Game - Unarmed Strikes Part 2 (I know that it isn't a 100% reliable RAW source, but the situation here is pretty clear covered there).

Unarmed Strikes and Natural Weapons

Just as a creature can add weapon attacks to a full attack made with natural weapons, so too can it combine unarmed attacks with natural weapons. Two options are available to accomplish this task.

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.

A simpler method is to treat the creature's unarmed attack as an off-hand attack. (After all, an unarmed strike is rarely as effective as a weapon attack would be, so it doesn't really merit the same level of priority in the average monster's attack array.) Instead of using its primary limb to deliver the unarmed attack, it uses a kick, head butt, or other appendage that isn't otherwise used to deliver a natural attack. The creature gains one unarmed strike, which deals damage appropriate to its size plus half its Strength bonus (since it's an off-hand attack). A creature using this method suffers a -4 penalty on all attacks (since it's effectively fighting with two weapons and its off-hand weapon is light). The damage for its natural attacks is unchanged. This method requires fewer calculations on the fly, so it's probably easier to use in play.

The first option is the option (the one I mentioned earlier) leaves only room for 1 additional claw attack cause the other claw limb is already used for primary attacks.

The second option would give the monk 2 claw attack and a single offhand unarmed strike, but would prevent the use of beast strike, cause he would need to make that offhand attack with another limb(s) than with his primary (claw) attack(s). (edit) further you would need to spend talents for additional attacks from high BAB for your unarmed off-hand attacks. A really bad option overall imho and the reason why I only pointed out the first method.

[Troacctid]

Those are 3.0 rules. The 3.5 update removed the -4 penalty for attacking with a weapon held in your off hand.

[Darrin]

http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070403a
Rules of the Game - Unarmed Strikes Part 2 (I know that it isn't a 100% reliable RAW source, but the situation here is pretty clear covered there).


I don't think Rules of the Game can help much here. As you mentioned, it's not a reliable source of RAW, but this sentence in particular I have some issues with:



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.

(I have removed your bolded emphasis not entirely to promote confusion and obfuscation, but mostly because I'm lazy.)

First, there is no general rule that requires you to identify which limb or portion of your body you are making an unarmed strike with. The rules for unarmed strikes deliberately make this ambiguous.

Second, there is no rule *anywhere* that says if you attack with a natural weapon, that limb is no longer eligible to make armed attacks. (I've looked. A lot.) It's assumed in the MM stat blocks, and most people follow this largely out of a misplaced and pedantic desire to follow the dictates of common sense, but the rule itself has never appeared in the actual rules text.



I'm not sure I follow why this would be true. There's no such thing as an off hand natural weapon attack. There's just the rules for using natural and manufactured together, which don't provide for any reason you'd only get one claw attack.

In an effort to build a monument to promoting the interests of pedantry: The rules explicitly say that natural weapons must either be primary or secondary attacks (MM p. 311 under "Manufactured Weapons" or p. 312 under "Natural Weapons"), but they are breathtakingly silent on whether secondary attacks can also be offhand attacks. Assuming you can reach a definitive conclusion on what it means to "wield" a weapon (there's no official definition), there's no explicit rule against it. There are several examples where natural weapons can be used as offhand attacks:

Bloodclaw Master's Shifting (ToB)
Osteomancer's Bone Spurs (Dragon Compendium)
Shifter's Razorclaw (ECS/MM3)
Skarn's Spines (MoI)
Spiker's Natural Spikes (Planar Handbook)

It may be possible to use a natural weapon as an offhand attack. Most of the time, it's really not worth it to do so (-4 primary penalty, -8 offhand penalty), but taking the TWF feat may change this. There is, of course, the general rule that natural weapons can only attack once per round (which is somewhat brazenly ignored for Attacks of Opportunity), but it's not clear if Improved TWF or Greater TWF would adhere to this rule or be considered exceptions to it.

[Thurbane]

Minor nitpick: The text for Improved Rapidstrike does not give you iterative attacks. It gives you extra attacks, but the text does not specify if they are primary, secondary, or something else. Just because an extra attack comes with a -5 penalty doesn't mean it's an "iterative" attack.

Same with the Animal Companion option: yes, technically not iteratives, but functionally almost identical.

[Red Fel]

What do you mean? It says pretty plainly that they are considered natural claw attacks and you get two of them.


?.

Yeah, that's my bad. I was thoroughly misremembering.

But yeah. The point is that attacks made with Beast Strike are unarmed attacks that deal claw damage, or (unarmed + unarmed + EB); as others and I have said, however, you can do a full attack routine with your full iterative unarmed strikes, followed by one of each of your natural weapons (in this case, you may perform two Eldritch Claw attacks). It forms the core of various King of Smack builds, and is why, for example, an unarmed Warblade with IUS, a host of natural weapons, and Stormguard Warrior is such a terror to behold.

[Gruftzwerg]

Those are 3.0 rules. The 3.5 update removed the -4 penalty for attacking with a weapon held in your off hand.

?
the -4 for all attacks comes from untalented DW with a light offhand weapon (-4/-4). straight 3.5 ruling. I guess you somehow misinterpreted there something.


First, there is no general rule that requires you to identify which limb or portion of your body you are making an unarmed strike with. The rules for unarmed strikes deliberately make this ambiguous.

Second, there is no rule *anywhere* that says if you attack with a natural weapon, that limb is no longer eligible to make armed attacks. (I've looked. A lot.) It's assumed in the MM stat blocks, and most people follow this largely out of a misplaced and pedantic desire to follow the dictates of common sense, but the rule itself has never appeared in the actual rules text.

to First) no there is no rule, you are right. but if you wanna make use of Beast Strike's extra claw damage, then I guess you are using at least one clawed limb (which leaves the other for a single secondary natural claw attack).

to Second)
general: you only have 1 attack/round
specific: you can get additional attacks from: high BAB; DW and attack with 2 weapons (aka limbs); secondary Natrual Attacks (can be a limb, depends on the type); Claw Attacks
normally when you attack with a limb in a "certain way" for a full round, it is considered to be used and not available as fee hand for that entire round.
There is no real outpointing rule for this. It is more hidden between the lines of "Attack" and additional attacks as described in the PHB and some other sources about free-hand and yadda yadda.. sry for my laziness, but it's a long time ago I stepped upon this issue and gathered the infos. But if you really can disprove this, I would be happy to grab out some failed builds because of this issue to me.^^

[animewatcha]

Could you form the invocation for eldritch claws if you were under the following condition of "You cannot cast spells or take any other action that requires concentration as long as the frenzy/rage lasts."

Namely grab turn undead and frenzied hunt for bab = Character level and allowing for more iteratives.

[Zombimode]

First, there is no general rule that requires you to identify which limb or portion of your body you are making an unarmed strike with. The rules for unarmed strikes deliberately make this ambiguous.

While true, if you make a claim that the damage of your unarmed attacks is linked to the damage of your claws, it is quite apparent that you are at least incorporating at least one claw into your natural attacks.


Second, there is no rule *anywhere* that says if you attack with a natural weapon, that limb is no longer eligible to make armed attacks. (I've looked. A lot.) It's assumed in the MM stat blocks, and most people follow this largely out of a misplaced and pedantic desire to follow the dictates of common sense, but the rule itself has never appeared in the actual rules text.

First, this desire is not misplaced. Indeed, it is often instrumental for a healthy gaming Environment. Remember, this is D&D and not Magic The Gathering (where you really shouldn't care that your Ooze (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=405117) is wearing Boots (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=420893), your Little Owl Familiar (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=289221) is carrying and fighting with two (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=420616) swords (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=214368) and that you Remove the Soul (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=129699) of a Soulless One (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=205373).)
Second, the consistency of the Monster statblocks in this regard makes the intent painfully clear.

[Gruftzwerg]

Could you form the invocation for eldritch claws if you were under the following condition of "You cannot cast spells or take any other action that requires concentration as long as the frenzy/rage lasts."

Namely grab turn undead and frenzied hunt for bab = Character level and allowing for more iteratives.

"Eldritch Claws" isn't an invocation, it's a feat. Further it's a free action and last only for the actual round, (until the start of your next turn, incl AoO)which leads me to the assumption that you don't need to "concentrate" on it (like a spell).
Not really sure how it would interact with Frenzy/Rage, but I guess it should work.

[Necroticplague]

Could you form the invocation for eldritch claws if you were under the following condition of "You cannot cast spells or take any other action that requires concentration as long as the frenzy/rage lasts."

Namely grab turn undead and frenzied hunt for bab = Character level and allowing for more iteratives.

Eldritch Claws isn't an invocation, and doesn't say it requires concentration, so it works.

[KillianHawkeye]

Second, there is no rule *anywhere* that says if you attack with a natural weapon, that limb is no longer eligible to make armed attacks. (I've looked. A lot.) It's assumed in the MM stat blocks, and most people follow this largely out of a misplaced and pedantic desire to follow the dictates of common sense, but the rule itself has never appeared in the actual rules text.

There is such a thing called an "unwritten rule". In fact, it's quite a common occurrence in life. Also, your view that following common sense is "misplaced and pedantic" is very unfortunate and a bit sad.

[animewatcha]

interestingly..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKN-Ub_XaJ0

though the unarmed + claw would in dnd terms would be upon initial strike, sharpened nails and all that. Following claw attack ( secondary natural ) can be seen closer to end of video. First attack sets up nicely for that 'rake' as it were. All for same hand.

[Darrin]

There is such a thing called an "unwritten rule". In fact, it's quite a common occurrence in life.

It's not particularly helpful when attempting to determine the RAW.


Also, your view that following common sense is "misplaced and pedantic" is very unfortunate and a bit sad.

That was an attempt to be snidely sarcastic. Apparently a poor one (a better example of Poe's Law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law), perhaps).

[Necroticplague]

There is such a thing called an "unwritten rule". In fact, it's quite a common occurrence in life.
In real life, that's because there isn't a solid, codifying rules for everything that we're aware of. Games, however, do have everything in them codified in rules. If it's not written in the rules, it doesn't exist.

Also, your view that following common sense is "misplaced and pedantic" is very unfortunate and a bit sad.
Common sense would seem to indicate that, regardless of Beast Strike feat, it's possible to get UAS and both claws. Without Beast Strike, it's because you don't need to use a hand for an Unarmed Strike. With Beast Strike, it's because you practice martial arts that makes use of your natural weapons, so you should remain no less competent at bringing them to bear than an untrained person.