I don't undestand this NPC's attacks, please help - 3.5

[Jon_Dahl]

I am trying to assign attacks to an NPC satyr barbarian 11, but I cannot wrap my head around how this works. Please help.

The satyr's primary weapon is headbutt and manufactured weapons are its secondary weapon; this is how it reads in the Monster Manual. Okay, so as a single attack, a satyr 11th-level barbarian can attack with a headbutt (+16 attack bonus) or with a dagger (+11 attack bonus). The satyr in question has an STR score of 16. Hence, the BAB of the satyr is 13 and STR modifier is 3.

Alright, so the single attacks seem clear enough, but what about full attack? Is the full attack +16 with the headbutt, and +11/+6/+1 with a dagger? How is it possible that the secondary attack is the main attack here or something like that idk? And is the damage bonus for the headbutt +3 and for the three dagger attacks +1?

Can you explain to me as you would to a young child how the single attacks and the full attack of a weapon-wielding satyr function is terms of attacks bonuses and damage modifiers?

[InvisibleBison]

I believe the satyr's full attack entry is erroneous. It appears to be treating the dagger attack as a secondary natural weapon, which incurs a -5 attack penalty. However, every other creatures in the Monster Manual that I could find which has both natural weapons and manufactured weapons uses the manufactured weapon as their primary attack and their natural weapon(s) as secondary attacks (eg, hound archon, troll hunter). If you want to adjust satyrs to conform to this norm, ordinary satyrs would have a full attack of dagger +2, headbutt -3, and your satyr barbarian would have a full attack of dagger +16/+11/+6, headbutt +11.

[Buufreak]

I believe the satyr's full attack entry is erroneous. It appears to be treating the dagger attack as a secondary natural weapon, which incurs a -5 attack penalty. However, every other creatures in the Monster Manual that I could find which has both natural weapons and manufactured weapons uses the natural weapon as their primary attack and their natural weapon(s) as secondary attacks (eg, hound archon, troll hunter). If you want to adjust satyrs to conform to this norm, ordinary satyrs would have a full attack of dagger +2, headbutt -3, and your satyr barbarian would have a full attack of dagger +16/+11/+6, headbutt +11.

You said natural twice. I believe what you meant to say should read "use manufactured as primary, natural as secondary" in the... 3rd sentence I believe.

[InvisibleBison]

You said natural twice. I believe what you meant to say should read "use manufactured as primary, natural as secondary" in the... 3rd sentence I believe.

Yes, that is what I meant. Thanks for catching the mistake!

[Elves]

I believe the satyr's full attack entry is erroneous. It appears to be treating the dagger attack as a secondary natural weapon, which incurs a -5 attack penalty.

Yeah. The TWF rules do let you use a natural weapon as primary and manufactured weapon as offhand if you wanted to, but in that case it would be TWF penalties on both atks, not -5 on the manufactured weapon as if it were a secondary natural wep.


I'd prefer the rules to be simplified so that secondary attacks used unified rules regardless of whether they were natural or manufactured, instead of having separate rules for offhand natural weps and TWFing.

Frankly it would be nice if we could get rid of the difference between natural and manufactured attacks as well. Even if a monster has many natural weapons, since iterative attacks only apply to your main weapon when you're TWFing, the way it would work in a unified system is that the iteratives would only apply to your primary natural weapon --- which in the unified system we would just call your primary attack.

I don't think that would be overpowering in most cases. It doesn't seem like enough of a difference to justify having four different rules (manufactured weps, natural weps, offhand natural weps, two-weapon fighting) when you could just have two (primary attacks and secondary attacks). And in cases where a monster has a very powerful attack that you don't want them to get iteratives with, you could tag it with a "single attack" SQ.


Going farther afield though, my preference would be to go in the opposite direction and get rid of iteratives. I don't like them because they contribute to the slowdown of combat at higher levels by adding lots of extra rolls to resolve (worse, because of the iterative attack penalties, they take up extra time while also being increasingly less impactful).

I say this as a 4e baby, where there are no iteratives -- instead, your attack just deals higher damage. In 3.5, it would be similar to replacing iterative attacks with extra instances of base weapon damage. Importing that rule directly wouldn't work, or at least it would be very awkward, but TOB strike maneuvers are examples of how single attacks can still be kept relevant at high levels by adding bonus damage and various rider effects, just like 4e powers. There is obviously a place in the game for gaining extra attacks, but I don't think it should be the standard way all martials progress (neither as an inherent feature of gaining levels due to BAB nor via 5e's "totally not BAB" extra attack features that are given to all martial classes).

[Jon_Dahl]

Thank you very much for the help.

[Beni-Kujaku]

Additionally, if the satyr is a barbarian and does not keep its pipes in hand, there is little reason for it not to take up a bigger weapon than a dagger. A greatclub (two-handed weapon, 1d10+1.5xStr) would noticeably improve the satyr's effectiveness and make it more effectively fit its CR.