[3.5] am I limited to one bite attack per turn if I have multiple sources of bite?

[ciopo]

Greetings playgrounders.

I swear I read somewhere a definitive "no" to making more than one natural attack per "body part", probably because SRD:Natural weapons (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#naturalWeapons) says that generally you can only make one etc.

But that "generally" is throwing me for a loop, because that isn't exclusive, and I can well imagine odd creature tablets where perhabs the number of natural attacks wouldn't match up to the number of body parts.

Or a simpler situation, like a PC that has some natural attack gaining more from spells or classes or whatnot.

Like, for example, a druid casting two different "Bite of the wereX" spells.

Suppose both a "Bite of the wererat" and a "bite of the werewolf" are on a druid, of course only the highest typed bonuses would apply, he'd have both the benefits of blind-fight and finesse.

I am assuming he would be able to bite only once, but is this really the case? I'm not so sure anymore

I'm also not finding in the DMG or PHB where natural weapons are defined.

In the rule compendium there isn't the "generally" word, so I suppose that's where the definitive limitations I had in mind comes from

[Doctor Despair]

As I recall, you are limited by what type of natural weapon it is, so one bite, two claws (if you possess two claws), one tail (if you have one tail), etc. So one bite per mouth.

[Crake]

If you have multiple heads or multiple mouths, you can get multiple bites, hydras are a perfect example of this. But if you simply gave your single mouth multiple bite attack modes, you still only have one mouth, so you only get one bite.

[Draken]

In general, what that prevents is the making of iterative attacks with natural weapons (there are ways around it). Having multiple Bite of the Werewhatever spells active will give mostly nonstacking benefits, but the multiple separate bite attacks are one thing you will get and will be able to use together. Although one of those will have to be a primary natural attack and the others will be demoted to secondary status, as they will all be different and thus not eligible to be grouped into a set. The same goes for the claws, truth be told. All in all, getting multiple variants of that spell active at once will turn you into a chimeric blob of mouths and claws with a quaint array of natural attacks.

[Ramza00]

Hydras can do multiple bites.

Remember the history of DnD. Previous editions of DnD allowed players to do things more abstract like I cast grease and I create a grease fire and thus the fire does extra damage due to the "kerosene" like accelerant. Now in 3.5 we have less abstraction and more finely tune rules hoping this makes things flow easier for the player and the dungeonmaster. Regular 1st level Grease can't do what I explained above in 3.5, but the 2nd level spell Incendiary Slime acts like Grease with a Higher Save DC but also you can catch it on fire.

But you can't lock down everything in 3.5 without making it not fun, and thus we get some exceptions to the rules that throw everything out where the players and DM are asking how does this work.

A creature with multiple heads like a hydra can do multiple bites, yet the general rule is 1 head equals 1 bite max.

*shrug*

(sorry if this does not help you with a precise book and page reference)

[liquidformat]

Greetings playgrounders.

I swear I read somewhere a definitive "no" to making more than one natural attack per "body part", probably because SRD:Natural weapons (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#naturalWeapons) says that generally you can only make one etc.

But that "generally" is throwing me for a loop, because that isn't exclusive, and I can well imagine odd creature tablets where perhabs the number of natural attacks wouldn't match up to the number of body parts.
In general is correct because there are ways to get extra bite attacks, Fist of the Forest count as an additional bite attack and I believe Animal Devotion also counts as an additional bite attack (will have to look around to verify this though).

You can also gain multiple bites by having multiple heads or abilities that simulate multiple heads. Here are the ways to do that: multiheaded template, polymorph into a hydra, chimera, other multiheaded creature with bite attacks, Wild shape into cryohydra with Frozen Wild Shape, shape Threefold Mask of the Chimera.

Once you have two or more bite attacks you can use Rapidstrike and Improved Rapidstrike to gain iterative bite attacks.

If you have any natural weapon you can gain iteratives of said natural weapon by taking levels of Thayan Gladiator focusing on said natural weapon.

You can also get an extra attack with a natural weapon through Amulet of Natural Attacks with the speed enhancement (There are also Beast Claws, and a couple bite, tail, and other natural weapon related items that can give you weapon abilities to natural weapons, like the warforged components)


Or a simpler situation, like a PC that has some natural attack gaining more from spells or classes or whatnot.

Like, for example, a druid casting two different "Bite of the wereX" spells.

For Bite of the Were-x line of spells I believe they straight up replace each other and you don't even get the bonus feats if you have them all casted (though will have to hunt around for that ruling I think it was in an old FAQ).

[Doctor Despair]

In general, what that prevents is the making of iterative attacks with natural weapons (there are ways around it).

Notably, you can still make iterative attacks while using natural weapons -- the natural weapons just can't be the weapon you are making iteratives with. This is a notable, low-OP optimization technique for an unarmed-specialist character using wildshape and a necklace of natural attacks.

[Quentinas]

MMh based on the Multiheaded template i would say that you are limited to 1 bite attack per head but if you have multiple bite attack that doesn't overwrite themselves you shouldn't be limited

[Darg]

For Bite of the Were-x line of spells I believe they straight up replace each other and you don't even get the bonus feats if you have them all casted (though will have to hunt around for that ruling I think it was in an old FAQ).

They change your form. It is like a partial polymorph changing the exact same parts. You wouldn't get the snout of 5 different animals protruding from your head.

[RNightstalker]

I think this would be a case where the same bonuses don't stack, though if you had sources of bonus attacks, I'm sure you could do a bite with the extra one.

[Troacctid]

Here's the relevant rule.

The number of attacks a creature can make with its natural weapons depends on the type of the attack—a creature can make one bite attack, one attack per claw or tentacle, one gore attack, one sting attack, or one slam attack. Large or larger creatures that have arms or armlike limbs can make a slam attack with each arm. Refer to the individual monster descriptions, which take precedence over these general rules.

[Zancloufer]

Worth noting while the general rules say "only one bite" the Multi-Headed template (which adds extra heads to just about anything) specifically calls out extra bite attacks and even extra breath weapons or uses of swallow whole. Also if the "bite" is the creatures most effective or only natural attack one could use all bites in a full attack action with no BaB penalty.

Also unless otherwise specified I'm 99% certain that multiple natural attacks would be a full attack as any creature with multiple sources of natural attacks doesn't appear to get any extra attacks per round from BaB.

[ciopo]

Yeah, my confusion comes from feeling a disconnect between body parts amount and number of natural attacks granted by sources other than what are inherent to the creature shape.

like, for example, the spell girallion blessing, Spell compendium version, whose effect is "you gain 2 extra spectral arms and blablabla, you gain 4 claw attacks"

If I were to cast girallion blessing on a creature that natively have more/less than 2 arms, they'd end up with less/more than 4 arms after the cast, but the spell description is "gain 4 claw attacks", it's not "for each arm, gain a claw attack"

this, to me, feels like specific trumps general? maybe? I don't know!

The general would be the RC100 -> 1 claw attack per "hand"

the specific is the spell description? that says "you gain X", because the implied subtext is "even if you normally don't have X"

I'm trying to make sense of it in my mind, it's not a rule dispute I'm having at a table

is there some general written rule somewhere that states something along the lines of "if you gain a X natural attack, this replace X natural attack you may have previously had" ? such that it would codify that the d6 bite attack from bite of the werewolf overrides the d4 bite attack from the wererat spell, for example

[Biggus]

Here's the relevant rule.

For those that don't regard the RC as binding, there's also the Rapidstrike feat, which says "Normal: Without this feat, you attack once with each natural weapon."



like, for example, the spell girallion blessing, Spell compendium version, whose effect is "you gain 2 extra spectral arms and blablabla, you gain 4 claw attacks"

If I were to cast girallion blessing on a creature that natively have more/less than 2 arms, they'd end up with less/more than 4 arms after the cast, but the spell description is "gain 4 claw attacks", it's not "for each arm, gain a claw attack"

this, to me, feels like specific trumps general? maybe? I don't know!


Ah, good old Girallon's Blessing, I've had more than one argument about this one. As far as I can see, the intended meaning is quite clear from the line "Each of its arms—new and old—ends in a clawed hand with fingers and an opposable thumb" (emphasis mine). So if you're taking an ultra-literal RAW perspective you can argue that even an earthworm gains 4 claw attacks if you cast GB on it, it's almost certainly just a badly-worded spell and isn't meant to be an exception to the "one attack per natural weapon" rule.

[ciopo]

For those that don't regard the RC as binding, there's also the Rapidstrike feat, which says "Normal: Without this feat, you attack once with each natural weapon."

Ah, good old Girallon's Blessing, I've had more than one argument about this one. As far as I can see, the intended meaning is quite clear from the line "Each of its arms—new and old—ends in a clawed hand with fingers and an opposable thumb" (emphasis mine). So if you're taking an ultra-literal RAW perspective you can argue that even an earthworm gains 4 claw attacks if you cast GB on it, it's almost certainly just a badly-worded spell and isn't meant to be an exception to the "one attack per natural weapon" rule.

Nice on rapidstrike, but that doesn't really help me much, since it mentions "natural weapon", not "body part"

I agree on the RAI of Girallon blessing.

by that same account, bite of the weretiger "two claw attacks" regardless of amount of hands you may or may not have

I'm going to ruminate more on this

Edit: rumination
havign ruminated, I suppose my hangs up is that "natural weapon" is a defined term, body parts are not? I equate effects that says "you gain X attack" as mechanically "on the full attack entry of the charatcter/creature entry, add X", that's what you do on the game level, while descriptions and such belong on the fiction level, if that makes sense?

I can see the common sense of "you have one mouth, you do one bite attack", but the edge case I'm not wrapping my mind around is if a creature for whatever reason have more "bite attack" on its full attack entry than amount of mouths said creature has.

The simple cases such as wild shape / alternate forms are easy, because they esplicitly say that "you lose the starting creature natural attacks, then gain the new form natural attacks", no confusion there.

Druid that wildshapes into a claw/claw/bite form and then casts a "bite of the werex", my gut feeling answer/ruling is "use the biggest dice for whatever natural attack has multiple competing entries".

But then I got on thinking on it some more, and my thought is " but that's how carrying different manufactured weapons works, you declare which one you're using" and "natural weapons rules state that when you do a full attack action, you use all your natural weapons, so why wouldn't a creature with two bite attacks not bite twice, regardless of how the creature is described?"

fluff vs crunch, I guess?

[Darg]

There is no source specifically preventing a natural weapon from getting more than one attack with that weapon from other sources such as rapidstrike. Not to mention primary versus secondary is based on the natural weapon type, not attack.

This means that you can get more than one bite attack per mouth and if bite is the primary weapon then none of the bite attacks receive penalties to attack.

One way to do this is to be a second level dragon disciple and cast bite of the wererat. You get your bite from your class feature and get a second bite attack from the transmutation of the spell.

A cool combo is getting 2 levels dragon disciple with druid wildshape. As the bite and claw attacks are class features you get to retain them while wild shaped.

[Doctor Despair]

Remember to be aware of whether or not you have proficiency with the natural weapons in question, too. Wildshape grants proficiency with all the natural weapons of your form, but humanoids, by default, aren't proficiency with their natural weapons (leading to the issue of monks being non-proficient with unarmed strike).

[AnimeTheCat]

The simple cases such as wild shape / alternate forms are easy, because they esplicitly say that "you lose the starting creature natural attacks, then gain the new form natural attacks", no confusion there.

Druid that wildshapes into a claw/claw/bite form and then casts a "bite of the werex", my gut feeling answer/ruling is "use the biggest dice for whatever natural attack has multiple competing entries".

But then I got on thinking on it some more, and my thought is " but that's how carrying different manufactured weapons works, you declare which one you're using" and "natural weapons rules state that when you do a full attack action, you use all your natural weapons, so why wouldn't a creature with two bite attacks not bite twice, regardless of how the creature is described?"

fluff vs crunch, I guess?

I get in to this a bit more below, but natural weapons (one of the two forms of natural attacks) are physically part of the creature. If you have a bite natural weapon, and then you cast a spell that physically changes that, do you still have that bite natural weapon, or has it been changed? Say you are in Dire Rat wild shape and you cast Bite of the Weretiger which says,

Bite of the Weretiger
...your mouth becomes that of a tiger, giving you a bite attack.
Your mouth is no longer like that of a Dire Rat. You no longer have the elongated snout and sharp front teeth of a rat, you now have a shortened face with a mouth full of sharp piercing teeth and more powerful jaws. Your physical form has changed, and there's no physical way that you can possess your dire rat bite anymore. I would think that those spells physically alter your body in such a way that you no longer have access to that other bite, due to physical changes.


One way to do this is to be a second level dragon disciple and cast bite of the wererat. You get your bite from your class feature and get a second bite attack from the transmutation of the spell.

I don't think this is correct because of what Rules Compendium says about Natural Attacks:

Natural Attacks
...Natural Weapons, such as fangs or claws, are physically a part of a creature...

Attacks
... The number of attacks a creature can make with its natural weapons depends on the type of attack - a creature can make one bite attack, one attack per claw or tentacle,...
...refer to the individual monster descriptions, which take precedence over these general rules.

So, we know that a bite attack natural weapon is physically part of a creature. By casting Bite of the wererat, did you gain another bite natural attack by growing another biting body part? My thoughts are no, because the Bite of the wererat spell says:

Bite of the Wererat
...Your face lenghtens into a ratlike snout, and you gain a bite attack...
I understand that it says you gain a bite attack, but you already had one, and you've modified it. If anything, this indicates that you've simply replaced your existing bite attack with a different one because you haven't gained a new body part. Also, remember, "Natural weapons... are physically part of the creature" and the general rule is "the number of attacks... depends on the type of attack - a creature can make one bite attack,...".

Contrast this with something like Girallons's blessing:

Girallon's Blessing
...You give the subject an additional pair of arms. Each of its arms - new and old - ends in a clawed hand with fingers and an opposable thumb...
This is in stark contrast to bite of the wererat. This actually gives you new body parts, than thus increases the number of natural weapons you have, and plays nicely with the rules as described in the Rules Compendium of, "one attack per claw or tentacle".

"But what about Hydras?!" you may ask. Well... the rules did already cover this. "...refer to the individual monster descriptions, which take precedence over these general rules." to which the very first line under combat for the hydra says:

Hydra
Combat
Hydras can attack with all their heads at no penalty, even if they move or charge during the round.
There's the specific call out that Hydras are unique. No single headed monster that I can find has multiple bite attacks, which is consistent with the general rule "...a creature can make one bite attack...".

Ok, so let's assume that Bite of the Wererat does in fact give you a second bite attack. It doesn't, by my reading, but let's assume that it does. Nothing in the bite of the were-creature line of spells changes the general rule of "...a creature can make one bite attack..." as is done with the Hydra, so you're still bound by the general rule. A creature can make one bite attack.

To summarize, how does one physically have the bite of a rat and a dragon in the same physical form? My suggestion is that you don't, and that the rules generally support that suggestion, and that it's probably best not to overthink it because until you point out where your specific creature rules state otherwise, you're still bound by the general rule in the natural attacks book that states "...a creature can make one bite attack..."

[Remuko]

There is no source specifically preventing a natural weapon from getting more than one attack with that weapon from other sources such as rapidstrike. Not to mention primary versus secondary is based on the natural weapon type, not attack.

This means that you can get more than one bite attack per mouth and if bite is the primary weapon then none of the bite attacks receive penalties to attack.

this is true in pathfinder not 3.5 iirc. in 3.5 you have one primary attack and all others are secondary unless otherwise noted.

[Doctor Despair]

All this talk about the number of mouths makes me wonder if there's any reading of Magic Mouth that would have an amusing interaction here.

[ciopo]

To summarize, how does one physically have the bite of a rat and a dragon in the same physical form? My suggestion is that you don't, and that the rules generally support that suggestion, and that it's probably best not to overthink it because until you point out where your specific creature rules state otherwise, you're still bound by the general rule in the natural attacks book that states "...a creature can make one bite attack..."

I don't disagree with you.

Tho, to answer your summarization, it is the difference between what's in the imagination and what is in the math.

In a vaccum, if I were to cast Girallion blessing on a constrictor snake, the full attack entry of the monster would be "Bite +5 melee (1d3+4) and 4 claws +0 melee (1d4+4)", no matter than it has two arms, and despite all those claws being secondary they still get the full str bonus to damage because *the spell says so* ( but I can totally see the argument "it's poorly worded" and put it at 1/2 str as is proper for secondary natural attacks )

I don't see why that is okay ( caveat someone might rule it's 1bite +2 claw because it only has the 2 arms granted by the spell),
but a full attack entry of "bite (...) and bite (...)"

That's not even touching "poorly worded" spell/features/what_have_you that have clearly defined mechanical effect, but leaves the descriptive fluff 100% on the hand of the players/DM.

I'm not seeing a consensus in the opinion, but I'm happy there is conversation. I see merit to both the "yes" and the "no".

The comment about profiency is fun to think about! But I see the spells are saying specifically " you use the bite at BAB+str" and so on, at least for the "bite of X" series

[AnimeTheCat]

I don't disagree with you.

Tho, to answer your summarization, it is the difference between what's in the imagination and what is in the math.

In a vaccum, if I were to cast Girallion blessing on a constrictor snake, the full attack entry of the monster would be "Bite +5 melee (1d3+4) and 4 claws +0 melee (1d4+4)", no matter than it has two arms, and despite all those claws being secondary they still get the full str bonus to damage because *the spell says so* ( but I can totally see the argument "it's poorly worded" and put it at 1/2 str as is proper for secondary natural attacks )

I don't see why that is okay ( caveat someone might rule it's 1bite +2 claw because it only has the 2 arms granted by the spell),
but a full attack entry of "bite (...) and bite (...)"

That's not even touching "poorly worded" spell/features/what_have_you that have clearly defined mechanical effect, but leaves the descriptive fluff 100% on the hand of the players/DM.

I'm not seeing a consensus in the opinion, but I'm happy there is conversation. I see merit to both the "yes" and the "no".

The comment about profiency is fun to think about! But I see the spells are saying specifically " you use the bite at BAB+str" and so on, at least for the "bite of X" series

Well... The thing about the bite is that the general rule is (ironically) very specific. A creature may make one bite attack. In terms of claw attacks, it's not so specific and allows room for expansion, but you're still limited to one attack per claw or tentacle. If you only have two claws granted by the spell, you only get two claw attacks. That's pretty explicit in the rules. Even still, the spell grows you one pair of arms and puts claws on all of your hands. If you didn't have arms to begin with, you would only have 2 arms and two claws. Those rules say one attack per claw, and the spell doesn't change that. The spell doesn't let you have more than one attack per claw. There's not a line in it like what you find with the Hydra that allows you to make multiple of the same type of attack, counter to what the general rule says, so again there's no specific vs general conflict.

[Quentinas]

I think that RAI the rules could be read "You can do an attack with a particular natural weapon for each time you have that natural weapon" So if you have 3 tentacles 2 claw 1 bite for head and 1 gore attack for head you can do (with two heads) 9 natural attack in total

Now RAW is more difficult but from the hydras number of attack and the multiheaded template we can desume something, as for example let's say that a template or a feat give us a bite attack and we have these two possibilities an ettin and a multiheaded (two) troll. Our multiheaded troll would have two bite attack while the ettin (only one gs less but that can be adjusted) would have only one attack even if he is called two headed giant

[ciopo]

Well... The thing about the bite is that the general rule is (ironically) very specific. A creature may make one bite attack. In terms of claw attacks, it's not so specific and allows room for expansion, but you're still limited to one attack per claw or tentacle. If you only have two claws granted by the spell, you only get two claw attacks. That's pretty explicit in the rules. Even still, the spell grows you one pair of arms and puts claws on all of your hands. If you didn't have arms to begin with, you would only have 2 arms and two claws. Those rules say one attack per claw, and the spell doesn't change that. The spell doesn't let you have more than one attack per claw. There's not a line in it like what you find with the Hydra that allows you to make multiple of the same type of attack, counter to what the general rule says, so again there's no specific vs general conflict.
Oh, I don't find it ironic, that the general rule is very specific. I would happily keep on thinking "1 mouth 1 bite", since Rule compendium says so, it's pretty clear cut and close.
But it also says "unless the creature entry says otherwise"

So, I suppose my question becomes "what will be the creature entry of something/someone under the effect of spells that grant natural attacks?" I know there is precedent of having monster entries listing the effect of precasted spells, at least in the module materials, the most common example I can think of is having energy resistance to this or that energy damage be listed on a creature entry because said creature has resist energy cast on them. So, I take that to mean that if I were to write down what a creature entry of "THIS creature while under the effect of Bite of the wereX", would the bite be in the full attack section?

[AnimeTheCat]

Oh, I don't find it ironic, that the general rule is very specific. I would happily keep on thinking "1 mouth 1 bite", since Rule compendium says so, it's pretty clear cut and close.
But it also says "unless the creature entry says otherwise"

So, I suppose my question becomes "what will be the creature entry of something/someone under the effect of spells that grant natural attacks?" I know there is precedent of having monster entries listing the effect of precasted spells, at least in the module materials, the most common example I can think of is having energy resistance to this or that energy damage be listed on a creature entry because said creature has resist energy cast on them. So, I take that to mean that if I were to write down what a creature entry of "THIS creature while under the effect of Bite of the wereX", would the bite be in the full attack section?

1 mouth 1 bite is how it works. Natural weapons are physically part of the creature. Attacks are determined by the natural weapon. When you cast the bite of the wererat spell on yourself, regardless of whatever mouth you had, you don't have it anymore. That bite is gone because the physical part is no longer that.

1 body part, 1 natural attack is just how. It. Works. 1 attack per claw. That's it. Want more claw attacks? Grow more claw natural weapons. 1 slam per slamming limb. Want more slams? Grow more heavy limb natural weapons. 1 tail swipe per tail. Want more tail swipes? Grow more tails natural weapons.

If you want more bite attacks, you need more bite natural weapons, so at a minimum you need more mouths. Biye of the were-creature spells do not give you more mouths, they change your existing ones.

Theoretically, you could be a Ettin and cast two bite of the were-creature spells on yourself to get two bites, but that's because you have two mouths and the effects won't cancel each other out (except the enhancement bonuses).

Natural weapons are a physical part of the creature. The attacks you get are based on the natural weapon. Even if your stat block says bite +x (1d4), and bite +y (1d6), nothing has given you any grounds to make more than one bite attack, because no spell says anything about attacking with multiple bites like is the case with the hydra. To my knowledge, there is no single-mouthed creature that has 2 bite attacks, because the assumption is that natural weapons are physically a part of the creature, and that you receive one natural attack for each natural weapon you possess.

Edit: I could see, if one were to recreate the aliens from the Alien movies, giving them multiple bite attacks, but they have this weird telescopic multi-mouth... thing... just trying to illustrate my point that there is little-to-no ambiguous language here.

[Jervis]

In general is correct because there are ways to get extra bite attacks, Fist of the Forest count as an additional bite attack and I believe Animal Devotion also counts as an additional bite attack (will have to look around to verify this though).

You can also gain multiple bites by having multiple heads or abilities that simulate multiple heads. Here are the ways to do that: multiheaded template, polymorph into a hydra, chimera, other multiheaded creature with bite attacks, Wild shape into cryohydra with Frozen Wild Shape, shape Threefold Mask of the Chimera.

Once you have two or more bite attacks you can use Rapidstrike and Improved Rapidstrike to gain iterative bite attacks.

If you have any natural weapon you can gain iteratives of said natural weapon by taking levels of Thayan Gladiator focusing on said natural weapon.

You can also get an extra attack with a natural weapon through Amulet of Natural Attacks with the speed enhancement (There are also Beast Claws, and a couple bite, tail, and other natural weapon related items that can give you weapon abilities to natural weapons, like the warforged components)



For Bite of the Were-x line of spells I believe they straight up replace each other and you don't even get the bonus feats if you have them all casted (though will have to hunt around for that ruling I think it was in an old FAQ).

Side question what happens when a creature with multiple bites has mouthpick weapons? Can a 10 headed Hydra with 10 mouthpick fullblades get 10 iterative attacks? Can you get 2 full attacks with mouthpick weapons and mask of the chimera?

[ciopo]

1 mouth 1 bite is how it works. Natural weapons are physically part of the creature. Attacks are determined by the natural weapon. When you cast the bite of the wererat spell on yourself, regardless of whatever mouth you had, you don't have it anymore. That bite is gone because the physical part is no longer that.

1 body part, 1 natural attack is just how. It. Works. 1 attack per claw. That's it. Want more claw attacks? Grow more claw natural weapons. 1 slam per slamming limb. Want more slams? Grow more heavy limb natural weapons. 1 tail swipe per tail. Want more tail swipes? Grow more tails natural weapons.

If you want more bite attacks, you need more bite natural weapons, so at a minimum you need more mouths. Biye of the were-creature spells do not give you more mouths, they change your existing ones.

Theoretically, you could be a Ettin and cast two bite of the were-creature spells on yourself to get two bites, but that's because you have two mouths and the effects won't cancel each other out (except the enhancement bonuses).

Natural weapons are a physical part of the creature. The attacks you get are based on the natural weapon. Even if your stat block says bite +x (1d4), and bite +y (1d6), nothing has given you any grounds to make more than one bite attack, because no spell says anything about attacking with multiple bites like is the case with the hydra. To my knowledge, there is no single-mouthed creature that has 2 bite attacks, because the assumption is that natural weapons are physically a part of the creature, and that you receive one natural attack for each natural weapon you possess.

Edit: I could see, if one were to recreate the aliens from the Alien movies, giving them multiple bite attacks, but they have this weird telescopic multi-mouth... thing... just trying to illustrate my point that there is little-to-no ambiguous language here.

I agree but also respectuflly disagree? I mean I can easily imagine a one-armed troll still doing two claw attacks in a full attack, he's simply swiping twice with his one functional claw? I can just as easily do a ruling on it that, since he's so greviously injured, he only has one functional claw and thus only do one claw attack.

But, why should I rule so? what actual rule should I consult to rule that way? the relevant rule rather clearly says that the monster entry takes precedence over the general "natural weapons" blurb on the rule compendium. and in the monster entry there are two claw attacks listed.

I don't much buy "physical limitation" as a justification, because Iterative attacks break that fiction. I can swing a sword BAB/5 times in 6 seconds, but if my full attack entry says "2 claws" I can only do so if I phisically have two separate claws? I mean we are on the imagination level there, "claw" could be a single finger :D


I understand your point, it is my general stance too, it's how I would make a ruling on it too. I'm just generally averse to use fluff reason to justify crunch behavior.

Like, using a silly example, a characters with no hands that cast the spell burning hands. Just because the spell fluff says "from your fingertips" on the fiction/imagination level, I woulnd't disallow the game/mechanical effect of cone effect that does blablabla.

Rule compendium says "...one bite attack ... refer to the individual monster descriptions, which take precedence..."

So, if I had a monster crunch description listing two bite attack on it's full attack action, I would imagine it having two head/mouths. but it could just as easily be a single mouth with more than one row of fangs, like a shark for example.

I'm still leaning more toward agreeing with you, because "that is what the eyes see", but I'm not seeing it justified on the mechanical level.

which more to a point -> character uses a resource ( spell), there better be very good reason why it wouldn't give what it says it gives.

enhancement bonuses do not stack, only the highest apply : nothing to say here.

feat-like behavior for the duration : all apply, I can't think of a rule that would say otherwise, that the "bite of the wereX" are transmutation is not enough of a justification to me, unless you introduce a general houserule that you can only have one transmutation effect on you.

"you gain THIS natural weapon" : okay, bite replace bite ( because d'uh!) , but wait! why? rules says "1 bite, but if monster entry says otherwise, monster entry wins"

so off I go to compare to alternate form, oh sweet they say you lose your prior form natural weapons and gain the new form natural weapon, nice and neat because yeah, you're making a full transformation, d'uh!

Dragon disciple feature says "you gain unless you already had", so no problem there

But the wording of bite of the wereX is "you gain", period, so I'm like ??? " well, no one would be silyl enough to cast two bite of the wereX at the same time"

"but what if someone did? why wouldn't THE MAGIC accomodate having two bites with one head, do the rules support that?" so here I am doing the confused unga bunga

[liquidformat]

There's the specific call out that Hydras are unique. No single headed monster that I can find has multiple bite attacks, which is consistent with the general rule "...a creature can make one bite attack...".

Gibbering Mouther probably qualifies for single headed creature with multiple mouths. Also as I said above Thayan Gladiator does give you iteratives with your bite attack, and Fist of the Forest might give you an extra bite attack too (at least in the games I have played in we have ruled it such).


I think that RAI the rules could be read "You can do an attack with a particular natural weapon for each time you have that natural weapon" So if you have 3 tentacles 2 claw 1 bite for head and 1 gore attack for head you can do (with two heads) 9 natural attack in total

My understanding RAI and RAW is bite and gore are either or not both....


Side question what happens when a creature with multiple bites has mouthpick weapons? Can a 10 headed Hydra with 10 mouthpick fullblades get 10 iterative attacks? Can you get 2 full attacks with mouthpick weapons and mask of the chimera?
From reading Hydra a ten headed hydra with ten mouthpick weapons it is proficient with should be able to make full attacks with each weapon including iteratives regardless of whether it moves or not.
From reading meldshapes I am not sure if they are substantial enough that you could hold weapons with the extra mouths. Even assuming you could you would be subject to the multiweapon feat and the fact that there has never been an improved or greater version of said feat...

[AnimeTheCat]

I agree but also respectuflly disagree? I mean I can easily imagine a one-armed troll still doing two claw attacks in a full attack, he's simply swiping twice with his one functional claw? I can just as easily do a ruling on it that, since he's so greviously injured, he only has one functional claw and thus only do one claw attack.
That thing you just said, one claw two attacks, those are called iterative attacks. That's what you get for having a high BAB. You specifically do not get those when making attacks with Natural Weapons.


But, why should I rule so? what actual rule should I consult to rule that way? the relevant rule rather clearly says that the monster entry takes precedence over the general "natural weapons" blurb on the rule compendium. and in the monster entry there are two claw attacks listed.

I don't much buy "physical limitation" as a justification, because Iterative attacks break that fiction. I can swing a sword BAB/5 times in 6 seconds, but if my full attack entry says "2 claws" I can only do so if I phisically have two separate claws? I mean we are on the imagination level there, "claw" could be a single finger :D
The natural attacks section says you can't make iterative attacks with natural weapons. That's the crunch.


I understand your point, it is my general stance too, it's how I would make a ruling on it too. I'm just generally averse to use fluff reason to justify crunch behavior.

Like, using a silly example, a characters with no hands that cast the spell burning hands. Just because the spell fluff says "from your fingertips" on the fiction/imagination level, I woulnd't disallow the game/mechanical effect of cone effect that does blablabla.

Rule compendium says "...one bite attack ... refer to the individual monster descriptions, which take precedence..."

So, if I had a monster crunch description listing two bite attack on it's full attack action, I would imagine it having two head/mouths. but it could just as easily be a single mouth with more than one row of fangs, like a shark for example.

I'm still leaning more toward agreeing with you, because "that is what the eyes see", but I'm not seeing it justified on the mechanical level.

which more to a point -> character uses a resource ( spell), there better be very good reason why it wouldn't give what it says it gives.

enhancement bonuses do not stack, only the highest apply : nothing to say here.

feat-like behavior for the duration : all apply, I can't think of a rule that would say otherwise, that the "bite of the wereX" are transmutation is not enough of a justification to me, unless you introduce a general houserule that you can only have one transmutation effect on you.

"you gain THIS natural weapon" : okay, bite replace bite ( because d'uh!) , but wait! why? rules says "1 bite, but if monster entry says otherwise, monster entry wins"

so off I go to compare to alternate form, oh sweet they say you lose your prior form natural weapons and gain the new form natural weapon, nice and neat because yeah, you're making a full transformation, d'uh!

Dragon disciple feature says "you gain unless you already had", so no problem there

But the wording of bite of the wereX is "you gain", period, so I'm like ??? " well, no one would be silyl enough to cast two bite of the wereX at the same time"

"but what if someone did? why wouldn't THE MAGIC accomodate having two bites with one head, do the rules support that?" so here I am doing the confused unga bunga

I don't know what else to say. Natural attacks get strict limitations. The rules as written say the number and type of attack you get is determined by the natural weapon. If you only have one natural weapon (one set of fangs, for example), you can only get the one bite.

Honestly, even looking at the hydra, it still only gets one bite per mouth. A 5 headed hydra isn't getting 10 bite attacks, it's only getting 5. total. one per mouth.

Show me the precedent that is allowing you to make multiple natural attacks with a single natural weapon in any capacity. As near as I have seen, there is no place where the game allows a natural weapon to make multiple natural attacks, and that's what you're trying to do with the various bite morphing spells.

Specific note about Dragon Disciple. Since those are class features that carry that line you quoted, "you gain unless you already had", that means that not having those is a prerequisite for that class feature. If you lose the prerequisites, you lose the class feature. If you shape in to something with claws, you lose your dragon disciple claws specifically because you now have claws and you don't meet the prerequisites for the class feature.


Gibbering Mouther probably qualifies for single headed creature with multiple mouths. Also as I said above Thayan Gladiator does give you iteratives with your bite attack, and Fist of the Forest might give you an extra bite attack too (at least in the games I have played in we have ruled it such).

Yeah... I borked that sentence. What I meant was that I don't know of any single-mouthed creatures that get more than one bite. The mouth/fangs are the natural weapon. Natural attacks are based off of the weapon, so that would make sense. Lots of mouths, lots of bites, but only one bite per mouth.



My understanding RAI and RAW is bite and gore are either or not both....
Because of the wording of the natural attacks section, I don't think this is true. The natural weapons in question aren't the same. You make Gore attacks with horns, brambles, etc. Some kind of spiky bit protruding from the body. You make bite attacks with fangs, maws, and mouths. Because the natural attack is based off of the natural weapon being used, I don't think there's any conflict with using a gore and a bite at the same time. I'm trying to recall any precedent for this, but I'm AFB and drawing a blank at the moment.

I know I sowed some confusion with this earlier though when I said what I did about heads, so that's on me.

[ciopo]

The rules as written say the number and type of attack you get is determined by the natural weapon. If you only have one natural weapon (one set of fangs, for example), you can only get the one bite. but the rule as written says that the monster entry takes precedence over that, which is where I have my hangsup! A troll have 2 claws in it's full attack entry. it's type is giant so it's vaguely humanoid shaped, the srd doesn't mention at all *what it looks like*, I can certainly use it's game statistic *as is* while describing to players that it's an "old one armed troll" or whatever.

if it's standing still or taking a 5ft-step, then it's entitled to do a full attack action, what's his full attack? 2 claws (attack!)+bite (attack!), what this corresponds to the fiction may well be the troll flailing for 6 seconds and hitting/not hitting a whatever amounts of times as abstracted on the to-hit versus AC

I will try to find some monster entry where amount of natural attacks do not match up to the corresponding body part, I don't expect to find any, because I understand your point, and I agree! But it's ignoring that we are told to use the monster entry :( Tarrasque *should* have one gore attack if we go by the rule compendium, but instead has 2 horns attacks, for example. I don't take it as being an example of what I mean above, I must research, but can't right now ( coffee break @ work)

[liquidformat]

Because of the wording of the natural attacks section, I don't think this is true. The natural weapons in question aren't the same. You make Gore attacks with horns, brambles, etc. Some kind of spiky bit protruding from the body. You make bite attacks with fangs, maws, and mouths. Because the natural attack is based off of the natural weapon being used, I don't think there's any conflict with using a gore and a bite at the same time. I'm trying to recall any precedent for this, but I'm AFB and drawing a blank at the moment.

I know I sowed some confusion with this earlier though when I said what I did about heads, so that's on me.

I could have sworn there was something about gore and bites both being on the head you could only do one or the other and not both in a round, though will have to do some book diving to see where that came from. Anyways for boars, dire boar, elephant, elephant variants, and I think fhorge too their gore attack is a form of bite attack since it id performed with the tusks coming out of the mouth of the animal...

[AnimeTheCat]

but the rule as written says that the monster entry takes precedence over that, which is where I have my hangsup! A troll have 2 claws in it's full attack entry. it's type is giant so it's vaguely humanoid shaped, the srd doesn't mention at all *what it looks like*, I can certainly use it's game statistic *as is* while describing to players that it's an "old one armed troll" or whatever.

if it's standing still or taking a 5ft-step, then it's entitled to do a full attack action, what's his full attack? 2 claws (attack!)+bite (attack!), what this corresponds to the fiction may well be the troll flailing for 6 seconds and hitting/not hitting a whatever amounts of times as abstracted on the to-hit versus AC

I will try to find some monster entry where amount of natural attacks do not match up to the corresponding body part, I don't expect to find any, because I understand your point, and I agree! But it's ignoring that we are told to use the monster entry :( Tarrasque *should* have one gore attack if we go by the rule compendium, but instead has 2 horns attacks, for example. I don't take it as being an example of what I mean above, I must research, but can't right now ( coffee break @ work)

I'll get back to this, I too have to move quickly.


I could have sworn there was something about gore and bites both being on the head you could only do one or the other and not both in a round, though will have to do some book diving to see where that came from. Anyways for boars, dire boar, elephant, elephant variants, and I think fhorge too their gore attack is a form of bite attack since it id performed with the tusks coming out of the mouth of the animal...

Boars and elephants (both varieties, as far as I could tell) don't get bite attacks at all, they only get gore attacks. This is probably because they lack the teeth to properly use their mouth as a weapon and are instead relying on ramming things with their tusks. Elephants also get tramles from their feet and a slam from their trunk though, so there's still no conflict.

[Darg]

I don't think this is correct because of what Rules Compendium says about Natural Attacks:


So, we know that a bite attack natural weapon is physically part of a creature. By casting Bite of the wererat, did you gain another bite natural attack by growing another biting body part? My thoughts are no, because the Bite of the wererat spell says:

Natural weapon and natural attack are separate terms. Natural weapon is the weapon and natural attack is an attack with a natural weapon. As proven with Rapidstrike they definitely are separate things. Rapidstrike also proves that it is possible to get more than one attack per weapon. Haste is also an example of it. You might be right though about getting extra attacks with a natural weapon. Both DD's and BotWererat's description states that you "gain" a bite attack which is the terminology WotC uses for gaining abilities which a natural weapon (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#naturalWeapons) is.


To summarize, how does one physically have the bite of a rat and a dragon in the same physical form? My suggestion is that you don't, and that the rules generally support that suggestion, and that it's probably best not to overthink it because until you point out where your specific creature rules state otherwise, you're still bound by the general rule in the natural attacks book that states "...a creature can make one bite attack..."

DD doesn't say you grow claws or the snout of a dragon. Sure it's easy to picture, but by RAW it doesn't happen. All it says is that you get the attacks which I have already pointed out as being separate from the weapons used. This makes it really easy to assume that they get the attack without growing new body parts. It's also really easy to assume these are extra attacks as I mentioned before natural weapons are not limited in the number of attacks you can have with them. As they aren't limited by form and are class features you don't lose them when changing form.


this is true in pathfinder not 3.5 iirc. in 3.5 you have one primary attack and all others are secondary unless otherwise noted.

Not true. Primary and secondary are based on the weapon not the attack. If you hasted a bite weapon for an extra attack the second attack is not secondary. It is a primary attack just like the first because it is delivered by the primary weapon.

[Remuko]

Not true. Primary and secondary are based on the weapon not the attack. If you hasted a bite weapon for an extra attack the second attack is not secondary. It is a primary attack just like the first because it is delivered by the primary weapon.

It is indeed true.


When a creature has more than one natural weapon, one of them (or sometimes a pair or set of them) is the primary weapon. All the creature’s remaining natural weapons are secondary.

It doesnt matter how many weapons they have or what type, unless some specific thing overrules it, this is the general rule and all weapons beside one are secondary.

[Darg]

It is indeed true.



It doesnt matter how many weapons they have or what type, unless some specific thing overrules it, this is the general rule and all weapons beside one are secondary.

Rapidstrike? Haste? They don't create a secondary weapon. They give extra attacks to existing weapons. Meaning they don't suffer the secondary weapon attack penalty. Your quote specifically calls out weapons, not the individual attacks. You can have 2 primary bite attacks with haste. An amulet of natural attacks of speed can give each of your natural weapons extra attacks without increasing the number of weapons you possess. Attacks and weapons are different terms.

[Remuko]

Rapidstrike? Haste? They don't create a secondary weapon. They give extra attacks to existing weapons. Meaning they don't suffer the secondary weapon attack penalty. Your quote specifically calls out weapons, not the individual attacks. You can have 2 primary bite attacks with haste. An amulet of natural attacks of speed can give each of your natural weapons extra attacks without increasing the number of weapons you possess. Attacks and weapons are different terms.

my original comment was in the context of the discussion which is on natural weapons. so what i was stating was the rule on natural weapons. youre talking about iteratives and a feat whose specific trumps the general rule.