Did I mess up on the Full attack rules?

[Zexionthefirst]

From the SRD

If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough, because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon or for some special reason you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.

So, a Dire Ape has a BAB of +3. Is it able to make a full attack? It has a full attack line entry of:

2 claws +8 melee (1d6+6) and bite +3 melee (1d8+3)
Is it able to do this? Is this a stupid question? It doesn't have any feats that give it extra attacks.

[icefractal]

Yes. Natural weapons use different rules than iterative attacks.
You can use all of them that you have, once each, regardless of BAB.

If the ape was also using a weapon, it could only make one attack with that, but it could still make the rest of its natural attacks as secondary attacks (like the bite is) - minus the claw that it's using to hold said weapon, obviously.

[Rebel7284]

When making a full attack, you can attack with all your natural weapons regardless of your BAB. Secondary natural weapons have a penalty when doing this, although the Multiattack feat lessens it.

[Zexionthefirst]

Yes. Natural weapons use different rules than iterative attacks.
Plus, even a 1st level character can have multiple attacks in a full attack if they have Two-Weapon Fighting.

Thank you for the response. I was really hoping I'd messed up.

[ksbsnowowl]

Thank you for the response. I was really hoping I'd messed up.

You're upset that you did things correctly?

[Telonius]

So how close to a TPK was it?

[Jack_Simth]

You're upset that you did things correctly?

So how close to a TPK was it?
Telonius seems to have a good grasp on why Zexionthefirst might be upset about doing it right. If Zexionthefirst had messed up, and could point to "oops, I missed rule X, the encounter wasn't supposed to be that hard" and follow up with "so let's reset and run it again..." but if it was done right, well...

[Jeff the Green]

minus the claw that it's using to hold said weapon, obviously.

It's not necessarily obvious. It's a free action to take your hand off a two-handed weapon, so if the dire ape were wielding a spear it could stab, take a hand off, swipe, put it back on, take the other hand off, and swipe again.

[JNAProductions]

To be fair, I'm a glass cannon. 4d6+3 damage per swing (at one swing, for now) but crap for AC...

[Zexionthefirst]

You're upset that you did things correctly?

Yes. Though, less upset now then I was at the moment of posting this.


So how close to a TPK was it?

That Rend, man. The REND... Not a TPK, but technically dropped a player from full health to -18.


To be fair, I'm a glass cannon. 4d6+3 damage per swing (at one swing, for now) but crap for AC...

More like Glass pickax. :wink:

[ksbsnowowl]

Telonius seems to have a good grasp on why Zexionthefirst might be upset about doing it right. If Zexionthefirst had messed up, and could point to "oops, I missed rule X, the encounter wasn't supposed to be that hard" and follow up with "so let's reset and run it again..." but if it was done right, well...I suspected as much, but I still don't see what there is to be upset about. If you ran it right, and the PC's died... that's on them, or the dice, not necessarily the DM (unless he set up the encounter unfairly, somehow). If a Dire Ape hit with every attack, he's doing possibly as high as 56 points of damage with a full attack. Adventuring is dangerous work.


Yes. Though, less upset now then I was at the moment of posting this.

That Rend, man. The REND... Not a TPK, but technically dropped a player from full health to -18.


Okay, now you've got to tell us details about the party. Four 2nd level characters? Third level?

[Crake]

Yes. Though, less upset now then I was at the moment of posting this.



That Rend, man. The REND... Not a TPK, but technically dropped a player from full health to -18.



More like Glass pickax. :wink:

That'll teach your players to stand in melee with a creature capable of ripping them to shreds instead of using hit and run tactics, especially at a level where they gain no benefit from remaining stationary due to no natural attacks :smalltongue: Just think of it as a teachable moment.

[Zexionthefirst]

I suspected as much, but I still don't see what there is to be upset about. If you ran it right, and the PC's died... that's on them, or the dice, not necessarily the DM (unless he set up the encounter unfairly, somehow). If a Dire Ape hit with every attack, he's doing possibly as high as 56 points of damage with a full attack. Adventuring is dangerous work.



Okay, now you've got to tell us details about the party. Four 2nd level characters? Third level?

Four 3rd level characters. It was a based off of a random encounter table... Which upon further inspection may not be appropriate for a group of their level. It all worked out though. And, on a positive note: I got clarification on Full Attacks and natural attacks. :smallcool:


That'll teach your players to stand in melee with a creature capable of ripping them to shreds instead of using hit and run tactics, especially at a level where they gain no benefit from remaining stationary due to no natural attacks :smalltongue: Just think of it as a teachable moment.

To be fair, she used her movement to get into attack range of the Dire Ape. But, regardless, it's been worked out. We're all good now. :smallcool:

[John Longarrow]

Rend, man. The REND... Not a TPK, but technically dropped a player from full health to -18.


Normally a PC is dead at -10, so I'm guessing your not playing standard 3.5 then?

[Elkad]

Normally a PC is dead at -10, so I'm guessing your not playing standard 3.5 then?

He didn't say the player lived, just that it wasn't a TPK.

But using negative con for death is a pretty common houserule (and the actual rules for PF).

[Zexionthefirst]

Normally a PC is dead at -10, so I'm guessing your not playing standard 3.5 then?

House rule that you die at the inverse of your Con modifier score.


He didn't say the player lived, just that it wasn't a TPK.

But using negative con for death is a pretty common houserule (and the actual rules for PF).

Nailed it in one.

[Crake]

Four 3rd level characters. It was a based off of a random encounter table... Which upon further inspection may not be appropriate for a group of their level. It all worked out though. And, on a positive note: I got clarification on Full Attacks and natural attacks. :smallcool:



To be fair, she used her movement to get into attack range of the Dire Ape. But, regardless, it's been worked out. We're all good now. :smallcool:

Could have readied for the ape to move in, that way preventing it from getting a full attack, while getting your attack in and still being able to move away next round. Ah well, live and learn... or die and learn i guess :smalltongue:

[weckar]

House rule that you die at the inverse of your Con modifier.
Yikes, so if I had a CON of 6 I'd die at 2HP?

[Allanimal]

Yikes, so if I had a CON of 6 I'd die at 2HP?

That is harsh.
And how did a 3rd level character get a Con score of 46?

[ksbsnowowl]

Yikes, so if I had a CON of 6 I'd die at 2HP?

How are you coming up with that?

In his house rule, if you had a Con of 6, you'd die at –6 hp's.

(Though an oft-used adjustment to that rule is you die at –10 or negative Con score, whichever is better).

Edit: Just saw that the OP said the inverse of your Con modifier... pretty sure he meant the inverse of you Con score.

[weckar]

He said modifier, not score.

[Zexionthefirst]

Yikes, so if I had a CON of 6 I'd die at 2HP?

That was a mistake on my part. I'm so used to typing "modifier" after Con, it just sort of slipped into my response. They die at the inverse of their Constitution Score.


That is harsh.
And how did a 3rd level character get a Con score of 46?

That was a flub on my part. Sorry.


How are you coming up with that?

In his house rule, if you had a Con of 6, you'd die at –6 hp's.

(Though an oft-used adjustment to that rule is you die at –10 or negative Con score, whichever is better).


Edit: Just saw that the OP said the inverse of your Con modifier... pretty sure he meant the inverse of you Con score.

I messed up. Thank you for defending me though. :smallredface:


He said modifier, not score.

I shall edit post haste.

[Khedrac]

They die at the inverse of their Constitution Score.:smallamused::smallamused::smallamused:

Thank-you for the moment of laughter, :smallbiggrin: and yes, we all know what you really meant, but I think I should point out that "inverse" (without other context) means 1 divided by the number - so this would be a range from one third to one eighteenth...

[zergling.exe]

:smallamused::smallamused::smallamused:

Thank-you for the moment of laughter, :smallbiggrin: and yes, we all know what you really meant, but I think I should point out that "inverse" (without other context) means 1 divided by the number - so this would be a range from one third to one eighteenth...

That is one meaning of inverse, inverse proportion I believe. Anyway, there are a bunch of other meanings, where -X is the inverse of X. And these meanings are more commonly used.