Beaststrike, Eldritch Claw, Deformity (Clawed Hands)

[Mordante]

Hi all,

I am playing a clawlock. My clawlock is not optimized and I'm not trying to min/max to the extreme. A little bit of info on my character.

Level 5 warlock, level 2 acolyte of the skin and at level 10 I want to go into Hellfire.
Feats so far are:
Willing Deformity
Deformity (Clawed Hands)
Weapon Finesse
Mortal Bane
Eldritch Claw

Stats are: Str10, Dex19, Con16, Int14, Wis8, Cha14.

But things confuse me a bit. Right now I roll to hit for each each claw and when I hit I roll damage for each claw. The damage per claw would be 1D6(claw)+4D6(Eldritch Claw). Is this correct?

Now what would happen if I were to take the feat Beaststrike? I have read some post about it but I don't understand. Beaststrike says:

When you make an unarmed strike or grapple check to deal damage, you may add your claw or slam damage to your unarmed trike or grapple damage.

Does that mean that when you have claws already you normally don't add your claw damage to your strike?

Edit:
Acolyte of the skin has been modified.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Eldritch Claws:
"On a successful attack with an eldritch claw, you deal your normal amount of unarmed strike damage plus your eldritch blast damage."

Beast Strike:
"When you make an unarmed strike or grapple check to deal damage, you may add your claw or slam damage to your unarmed trike or grapple damage."

You're not making an unarmed strike, you're making an attack with the eldritch claws, so Beast Strike won't apply.

If your DM chooses to rule otherwise, you would deal unarmed strike damage plus claw damage plus eldritch blast damage. You need Improved Unarmed Strike to take Beast Claws, so dip Monk or wear a Monk's Belt (if your DM says it works, it says non-Monks get the unarmed damage but nothing about IUS), get a Monk's Tattoo, take Superior Unarmed Strike, etc.

You can take Improved Natural Attack (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsterFeats.htm#improvedNaturalAttack) for your claws, and/or for your unarmed strike.

[Troacctid]

Hi all,

I am playing a clawlock. My clawlock is not optimized and I'm not trying to min/max to the extreme. A little bit of info on my character.

Level 5 warlock, level 2 acolyte of the skin and at level 10 I want to go into Hellfire.
Feats so far are:
Willing Deformity
Deformity (Clawed Hands)
Weapon Finesse
Mortal Bane
Eldritch Claw

Stats are: Str10, Dex19, Con16, Int14, Wis8, Cha14.

But things confuse me a bit. Right now I roll to hit for each each claw and when I hit I roll damage for each claw. The damage per claw would be 1D6(claw)+4D6(Eldritch Claw). Is this correct?
No. Eldritch Claw creates new claw attacks that do not stack with your existing claws. Your clawed hands do not contribute to the damage. It would be 1d3 (unarmed strike damage) + 4d6 (eldritch blast damage, assuming your version of the prestige class has full advancement) + 0 (Strength).


Now what would happen if I were to take the feat Beaststrike? I have read some post about it but I don't understand. Beaststrike says:

When you make an unarmed strike or grapple check to deal damage, you may add your claw or slam damage to your unarmed trike or grapple damage.
It means that instead of making a claw attack for 1d3+4d6 damage, you can make an unarmed strike attack for 1d3+(1d3+4d6) damage. You can also make a full attack using your unarmed strike at your full BAB plus iteratives and both of your claws at -5, rather than using only the two claws at full BAB. (And of course you can grapple.)


Does that mean that when you have claws already you normally don't add your claw damage to your strike?
Correct. Natural attacks are separate from unarmed strikes. You don't normally combine the two unless a special ability explicitly allows it.

[loky1109]

Plus Deformity (Clawed Hands) is very poorly written. It's unclear is it claw attack or just strange unarmed strike.

[Darg]

Plus Deformity (Clawed Hands) is very poorly written. It's unclear is it claw attack or just strange unarmed strike.

Natural attacks are unarmed attacks.


The character has the ability to deal 1d6 points of damage as an unarmed claw attack. The character is considered armed even when unarmed.

As it doesn't mention making an unarmed strike, you make an unarmed attack with your claws.


"Armed" Unarmed Attacks

Sometimes a character’s or creature’s unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed.

[Mordante]

No. Eldritch Claw creates new claw attacks that do not stack with your existing claws. Your clawed hands do not contribute to the damage. It would be 1d3 (unarmed strike damage) + 4d6 (eldritch blast damage, assuming your version of the prestige class has full advancement) + 0 (Strength).


It means that instead of making a claw attack for 1d3+4d6 damage, you can make an unarmed strike attack for 1d3+(1d3+4d6) damage. You can also make a full attack using your unarmed strike at your full BAB plus iteratives and both of your claws at -5, rather than using only the two claws at full BAB. (And of course you can grapple.)


Correct. Natural attacks are separate from unarmed strikes. You don't normally combine the two unless a special ability explicitly allows it.

But aren't the claw my unarmed strike?

[holbita]

No.

Unarmed attacks are a category, like saying martial weapons or piercing weapons. Unarmed strike is an actual weapon, as there is no mention to it on the feat we should not bring it up in this discussion.

[Darg]

But aren't the claw my unarmed strike?

An unarmed attack is a melee attack without a weapon in hand. An unarmed strike is a blow from a character attacking without weapons. Claws are natural weapons. As they aren't a weapon held in your hand they are unarmed attacks. However, because they are a weapon you don't make unarmed strikes with them.

[Mordante]

An unarmed attack is a melee attack without a weapon in hand. An unarmed strike is a blow from a character attacking without weapons. Claws are natural weapons. As they aren't a weapon held in your hand they are unarmed attacks. However, because they are a weapon you don't make unarmed strikes with them.

If that is so what about:


Plus Deformity (Clawed Hands) is very poorly written. It's unclear is it claw attack or just strange unarmed strike.

[holbita]

That comes from people not understanding the difference between unarmed attack and unarmed strike. The feat is written correctly, but by adding the "unarmed claw" it just leads to trouble if you don't fully understand how the weapon classification works... and who does? it's not something that's clear on your first reading of the rules.

It should just have said "You gain a claw attack that deals 1d6 damage", and everyone would have been happy... well except the ones that ask the obvious questions... do you get a pair of claws like anyone else (you don't based on how the feat is written) and does it scale with size (it doesn't based on how it's written)

But it being a claw and not an unarmed strike should have no discussion, it's clear on that fact.

[Darg]

If that is so what about:

You have claws and the feat gives you one attack. It's relying on rules found in the MM and the PHB to fully explain what it is. The PHB for the unarmed attack classification and differentiation from an unarmed strike and the MM for how natural attacks work. Many rules don't rehash the general rules they use to function because there is an implied functionality from existing rules.


That comes from people not understanding the difference between unarmed attack and unarmed strike. The feat is written correctly, but by adding the "unarmed claw" it just leads to trouble if you don't fully understand how the weapon classification works... and who does? it's not something that's clear on your first reading of the rules.

It should just have said "You gain a claw attack that deals 1d6 damage", and everyone would have been happy... well except the ones that ask the obvious questions... do you get a pair of claws like anyone else (you don't based on how the feat is written) and does it scale with size (it doesn't based on how it's written)

But it being a claw and not an unarmed strike should have no discussion, it's clear on that fact.

Definitely clear that it gives you claws and a single attack. It's true that the "unarmed" is pretty unnecessary, but it is the proper classification and is a reference to the section of rules that govern the action. If a person wanted to search the rules you'd look up unarmed and claw as keywords.

[Morphic tide]

To break down the parts:

Eldritch Claw is "Gain 0-2 Claw attacks. When they hit, deal Unarmed Strike+Eldritch Blast damage".
Deformity (Clawed Hands) is "gain one 1d6 Claw attack that is unarmed, but you don't provoke Attacks of Opportunity and still have a threatened area".
Beast Strike is "When you attempt to deal damage with an Unarmed Strike or Grapple check, you may add Claw or Slam damage".

There's two semantic oddities here. The first is that technically Eldritch Claw damage is a distinct on-hit effect rather than the native weapon damage, which if followed through on means it cannot be applied to Beast Strike. The second is that the deformity Claw, singular, is unarmed as a category but still a Claw attack, rather than a typical Unarmed Strike. There's probably something that's tied to "unarmed attacks" rather than Unarmed Strikes, but Beast Strike and Eldritch Claw is not that.

...Unless you go with a deliberately absurd semantic game of Beast Strike not explicitly defining "Claw or Slam" as singular instances of the attack mode, in which case Deformity (Clawed Hands) pales in comparison to the bonus (Unarmed Strike+Eldritch Blast)*2 from applying both Eldritch Claws to every Unarmed Strike made.