Mixing manufactured and natural weapons

[rrwoods]

So.

We have this handbook: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?207928-Urpriest-s-Monstrous-Monster-Handbook -- It doesn't mention mixing natural and manufactured weapons as part of an attack routine.

It links to Solo and Keld's guide on natural weapons, but the link is broken. A working copy is here: http://minmaxforum.com/index.php?topic=482.0 . That guide makes the following statement:

In the presence of a weapon capable of making iteratives (manufactured weapon or UAS), all primary weapons are converted to secondary natural weapons.

The rules support for this statement, as far as I can find, is this (from 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. 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.

The phrasing says "the manufactured weapon attack" (singular!) is considered the primary attack and any natural weapons are considered secondary natural attacks. One or two folks here have referenced the above guides as being thorough discussions on the topic; from a char-op perspective I agree, but from a rules support perspective I respectfully disagree. Neither guide quotes any rules, and the only quote I can find on the topic is the one above. Those same folks have suggested that, when making a manufactured weapon full attack, you can follow with all your natural weapons as secondaries.

To me, it appears that, for a character holding a manufactured weapon (or using unarmed strikes) and possessing one or more natural weapons, the full attack routine options are:


Make a single attack with your iterative-capable weapon, and follow with all your natural weapons as secondaries; OR
Make your full attack routine with your iterative-capable weapon, with no ability to use natural weapons afterward.


EDIT: Doing a little more research, it looks like the explicit mention of multiple iteratives followed by naturals comes from custserv responses and (now-inaccessible) FAQ entries. Sigh.

[Venger]

The full attack options for such a character include (assuming for simplicity's sake they are using a single manufactured weapon/unarmed strike):

Make all attacks they are entitled to by virtue of iteratives through said weapon/unarmed strike

After this, make one attack with all natural attacks at -5 (-2 if the character has multiattack.)

The rules you have quoted say this. Could you elaborate on where the breakdown is so we can help you?

(Even if faq were working, never use it. FAQ ≠ raw. Their answers are always wrong)

[Doctor Despair]

The rules you have quoted say this. Could you elaborate on where the breakdown is so we can help you?


I think their confusion arises from the emphasis they is placing on their reading:


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.

They are reading this as "attack" singular, precluding the use of iteratives, as, in their eyes, it should then read: the manufactured weapon attacks are considered the primary attacks.

You (and others), on the other hand, are placing emphasis on the first line, indicating this is a full attack, that generally folks can make iteratives with full attacks, and that generally folks can use secondary natural attacks in a full-attack action, and that there is nothing in this rules quote precluding the general rules from allowing you to make a combination of iteratives and secondary natural attacks (except, perhaps, trying to attack with a claw that is being used to hold a manufactured weapon).

[Venger]

If that is the issue, then your explanation seems thorough enough. The second reading is the correct one. You are indeed generally prohibited from using a claw if you are using that hand to hold a weapon.

[Gruftzwerg]

The full attack options for such a character include (assuming for simplicity's sake they are using a single manufactured weapon/unarmed strike):

Make all attacks they are entitled to by virtue of iteratives through said weapon/unarmed strike

After this, make one attack with all natural attacks at -5 (-2 if the character has multiattack.)

The rules you have quoted say this. Could you elaborate on where the breakdown is so we can help you?

(Even if faq were working, never use it. FAQ ≠ raw. Their answers are always wrong)

^ this

with the sole exception that a single limb can either be used either for manufactured or natural attacks in the same round. Not both together.

E.g. you have a creature with claws who wields a longsword. He could do a full attack (including iterative) with the longsword (mainhand) and than make a single claw attack with your offhand claw.

[rrwoods]

I read this sentence

Some creatures combine attacks with natural and manufactured weapons when they make a full attack.
As basically being followed by an implicit "I'm about to tell you how that works in full detail". This seems like the more natural reading to me than the accepted one, which is essentially that it's instead followed by "Make your manufactured weapon full attack normally, with the following modifications". I understand that reading, and I understand that the community generally seems to accept it this way, and I understand that in the past, WotC has confirmed that reading. But to me the actual text available pushes much harder in the other direction.

The next sentence contains

the manufactured weapon attack is considered the primary attack
What does "primary attack" mean? Every other instance of "primary attack" in the SRD either seems to lean back on the paragraph I'm debating (and is thus not useful for determining what the phrase means), or is this:

A creature’s primary attack damage includes its full Strength modifier (1½ times its Strength bonus if the attack is with the creature’s sole natural weapon) and is given first. Secondary attacks add only ½ the creature’s Strength bonus and are given second in the parentheses.
which is in the section "Reading the Monster Entries", under "Full Attack", and is also not helpful.

So we have to extrapolate. To me, the phrase "is considered the primary attack" is equivalent to "is considered the primary natural weapon in a full attack routine". The way full attack routines work when the only include natural weapons is that each weapon in the routine can be used once. Thus, when a manufactured weapon is playing the part of the primary attack (that is, the primary natural weapon) in a full attack routine, you can use it once.

----

To be clear, I'm not trying to unequivocally claim that I'm right. I already know that WotC disagrees and has stated as much. I'm just trying to clearly and concisely explain where I'm coming from. I do think, though, that this is clear as mud (as per usual) thanks to the language involved, and as a result it's honestly firmly in "ask your DM" territory even when strictly speaking about RAW.

[Gruftzwerg]

manufactured weapons are declared (by you) as mainhand (Str) & offhand (1/2 Str) and need to follow TWF rules if you use both. (or as twohanded weapon for 1.5xStr). You can get iterative attacks for high BAB for the mainhand (or twohanded) weapon.

natural weapons are declared as primary and secondary. Primary always uses full BAB while "all" secondaries take the same -5

Now, if you combine manufactured weapons with natural weapon we have a special ruling:

You declare your manufactured weapon as primary weapon (no penalty and gets iterative attacks form high BAB) and make "all" natural weapon attack as secondary with a -5 penalty.

If you have Multiattack, the penalty for "secondary attack" goes down from -5 to only -2.

I hope that should clear your problem. ?

[liquidformat]

This is actually a case that can be solved by any number of monster entries full attack entry lets take the Marilith (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/demon.htm#marilith) for example that is entitled to a Primary longsword +25/+20/+15/+10 melee (2d6+9/19-20) and 5 longswords +25 melee (2d6+4/19-20) and tail slap +22 melee (4d6+4).

It might not be clearly stated in the rule but it is clearly documented and RAW from looking at any number of monster entries throughout all the books. In fact I know of no monster entry that goes against this...

[rrwoods]

I hope that should clear your problem. ?
It doesn't; this is a restatement of what others have said, but it doesn't use rules to justify that restatement. Specifically:

You declare your manufactured weapon as primary weapon (no penalty and gets iterative attacks form high BAB) and make "all" natural weapon attack as secondary with a -5 penalty.
Emphasis mine, and highlighting what I'm having trouble finding actual rules text to support.

However, this is a lot closer:

This is actually a case that can be solved by any number of monster entries full attack entry lets take the Marilith (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/demon.htm#marilith) for example that is entitled to a Primary longsword +25/+20/+15/+10 melee (2d6+9/19-20) and 5 longswords +25 melee (2d6+4/19-20) and tail slap +22 melee (4d6+4).

It might not be clearly stated in the rule but it is clearly documented and RAW from looking at any number of monster entries throughout all the books. In fact I know of no monster entry that goes against this...
Monster entries are notoriously bad in certain ways. But given how consistent this is across many entries, it serves as actual rules text support for the accepted interpretation. I still think that, in isolation, the rule itself reads in a way that contradicts the monster entries. But it doesn't do so *clearly*, and the monster entries clear up what the intended interpretation is.

[Gruftzwerg]

Emphasis mine, and highlighting what I'm having trouble finding actual rules text to support.


The general rules for BAB (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatStatistics.htm)and Full Attack (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#fullAttack)still apply here.


Base Attack Bonus

A base attack bonus is an attack roll bonus derived from character class and level or creature type and Hit Dice (or combinations thereof). Base attack bonuses increase at different rates for different character classes and creature types. A second attack is gained when a base attack bonus reaches +6, a third with a base attack bonus of +11 or higher, and a fourth with a base attack bonus of +16 or higher. Base attack bonuses gained from different sources, such as when a character is a multiclass character, stack.

edit: maybe your have missed that natural weapons and offhand attacks are explicitly called out to not have iterative attacks and your confusion comes from there? It's a general rule as said (iterative attacks from high BAB). I don't get where you see a problem?

[Piggy Knowles]

I think the full MM entry is relevant here:



Manufactured Weapons: Some monsters employ manufactured weapons when they attack. Creatures that use swords, bows, spears, and the like follow the same rules as characters, including those for additional attacks from a high base attack bonus and two-weapon fighting penalties. This category also includes “found items,” such as rocks and logs, that a creature wields in combat—in essence, any weapon that is not intrinsic to the creature.

From there it goes on to go into the language you quoted, where combining manufactured and natural weapons results in the manufactured weapon always being primary, and natural weapons all being secondary attacks.

I can see how you might read that by "primary attack" you might assume that it follows the same rule as, say, a creature whose bite attack is its primary attack, e.g. it doesn't get iteratives despite the earlier language explicitly saying that creatures wielding manufactured weapons get them. However, the Rules Compendium explicitly states that those secondary attacks don't interfere with the primary attack:



COMBINING WEAPONS
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. These secondary attacks don’t interfere with the primary attack, but they take the usual penalty for being secondary attacks, even if the natural weapon used is normally the creature’s primary natural weapon.

And yeah, as inconsistent as monster entries tend to be, I think any confusion is more or less immediately clarified by every example of creatures with both manufactured weapons and natural attacks getting iteratives on their main attack. liquidformat provided kind of a weird example by picking the marilith, which treats its longswords as kind of a natural weapon, but for a more clear example check out the troll hunter (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/troll.htm#trollHunter) (+1 battleaxe +17/+12 melee (2d6+8/×3) and claw +12 melee (1d6+3) and bite +12 melee (1d6+3)), noble salamander (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/salamander.htm) (+3 longspear +23/+18/+13 melee (1d8+9/×3 plus 1d8 fire) and tail slap +21 melee (2d8+3 plus 1d8 fire)) or hound archon hero (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/archon.htm#houndArchon) (+2 cold iron greatsword +25/+20/+15/+10 melee (2d6+9/19-20) and bite +17 melee (1d8+2)). These aren't an exhaustive list, just showing that as far as I know every monster that combines manufactured weapons and natural attacks follow this method.

[liquidformat]

And yeah, as inconsistent as monster entries tend to be, I think any confusion is more or less immediately clarified by every example of creatures with both manufactured weapons and natural attacks getting iteratives on their main attack. liquidformat provided kind of a weird example by picking the marilith, which treats its longswords as kind of a natural weapon, but for a more clear example check out the troll hunter (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/troll.htm#trollHunter) (+1 battleaxe +17/+12 melee (2d6+8/×3) and claw +12 melee (1d6+3) and bite +12 melee (1d6+3)), noble salamander (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/salamander.htm) (+3 longspear +23/+18/+13 melee (1d8+9/×3 plus 1d8 fire) and tail slap +21 melee (2d8+3 plus 1d8 fire)) or hound archon hero (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/archon.htm#houndArchon) (+2 cold iron greatsword +25/+20/+15/+10 melee (2d6+9/19-20) and bite +17 melee (1d8+2)). These aren't an exhaustive list, just showing that as far as I know every monster that combines manufactured weapons and natural attacks follow this method.

I thought marilith was better then most since it had multiple types of secondary attacks and established that they all work the same but hey to each their own =D

[Piggy Knowles]

I thought marilith was better then most since it had multiple types of secondary attacks and established that they all work the same but hey to each their own =D

True true, just was worried that the existence of the extra longsword attacks would be confusing. Since the sticking point was whether or not the manufactured weapon got iteratives, I thought the others might be good supplemental examples.