PDA

View Full Version : Slam Attacks



NobleSavage
2008-01-04, 06:27 PM
When putting together a character that has Slam Attacks, how often to you end up using them? Is it pretty much like having Imp Unarmed Strike? Would you focus on using it, or just us weapons as normal?

Draz74
2008-01-04, 06:48 PM
If it does 1d4 or 1d6 damage like most Slams, or even 1d8, I'd just use a weapon anyway. The Slam would probably only come into play if I got Disarmed or had my weapon stolen or something.

Keld Denar
2008-01-04, 06:53 PM
As a natural attack, you can make attacks with your slam in addition to your itterative attacks by taking a -5 on all your slam attacks. Multiattack reduces this penalty to -2.

Collin152
2008-01-04, 07:01 PM
What is a slam attack? Surely it's not a full body rush or something. Does it use fists?

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-04, 07:06 PM
What is a slam attack? Surely it's not a full body rush or something. Does it use fists?

No, it is an attack that uses an appendage. In most cases it is made with an arm/fist.


Slap or Slam: The creature batters opponents with an appendage, dealing bludgeoning damage.


As a natural attack, you can make attacks with your slam in addition to your itterative attacks by taking a -5 on all your slam attacks. Multiattack reduces this penalty to -2.

Yes, but you cannot use an arm/fist to make a slam attack if you are also making weapon attacks with the same arm just like you cannot use a claw that is wielding a weapon.

NobleSavage
2008-01-04, 08:06 PM
So let me see if I understand this;

You may make one Slam attack at your normal bonus, or at a -5 in addition to an attack made with a weapon? Do all your attacks take a -5? What kind of action would this be?

de-trick
2008-01-04, 08:08 PM
Had a half-vampire archer who used his slam attack when enemy's got to close. Say one guy got to me just use my slam so don't have to draw a melee weapon and after the guy dies start shooting arrows at his buddys

Draz74
2008-01-04, 08:16 PM
So let me see if I understand this;

You may make one Slam attack at your normal bonus, or at a -5 in addition to an attack made with a weapon?

Right.


Do all your attacks take a -5?

No. Just the Slam (unless you're throwing other (secondary) Natural Attacks into the mix too).


What kind of action would this be?

An extra attack action as part of a full attack. Just like the extra attack that haste gives you, except it takes a -5 penalty.

Theli
2008-01-04, 08:19 PM
Yes, but you cannot use an arm/fist to make a slam attack if you are also making weapon attacks with the same arm just like you cannot use a claw that is wielding a weapon.

I always think of the warforged when I think of slam attacks. No limb use is indicated for a slamming warforged... So how does this rule apply to them?

The way I understand it is unless a creature is shown as using a natural attack in addition to a manufactured weapon, or otherwise iterative, progression in a stat block, they aren't intended to be able to use their natural attack as secondary weapons with their regular BAB attacks. Or at least that's the impression I received from a FAQ entry on the subject.

Chronicled
2008-01-04, 08:24 PM
I always think of the warforged when I think of slam attacks. No limb use is indicated for a slamming warforged... So how does this rule apply to them?

The way I understand it is unless a creature is shown as using a natural attack in addition to a manufactured weapon, or otherwise iterative, progression in a stat block, they aren't intended to be able to use their natural attack as secondary weapons with their regular BAB attacks. Or at least that's the impression I received from a FAQ entry on the subject.

Surely it was made so that every warforged could follow up their weapon attack with a roundhouse kick.

Theli
2008-01-04, 08:28 PM
You'd think, but maybe not.

AslanCross
2008-01-04, 09:45 PM
What is a slam attack? Surely it's not a full body rush or something. Does it use fists?

It's any bludgeoning attack with an appendage. It can be a punch, kick, headbutt, stomp, slap, or tentacle smack.

Irreverent Fool
2008-01-04, 09:52 PM
This is interesting. I never thought of slam attacks as a secondary natural attack. If this proves to be the case (and I am reading through books as we speak to find out), vampires just became even more dangerous. This is very bad news for my players... very, very bad news.

Theli
2008-01-04, 10:04 PM
I think it might be worth posting the relevant faq entry here:


Can a monk who has natural weapon attacks (such as a
centaur monk) attack unarmed and still use his natural
weapons? For example, let’s say he’s a 4th-level monk. Can
he use a flurry of blows and attack at +5/+5/+0 unarmed
(plus other bonuses) and then at +0/+0 for 2 hooves?
If the creature normally is allowed to make both weapon
attacks and natural weapon attacks as part of the same full
attack routine, the monk can do the same (making unarmed
strikes in place of weapon attacks). Since a centaur can make
two hoof attacks in addition to his longsword attack, a centaur
monk can make two hoof attacks in addition to his unarmed
strike attack (or attacks, depending on his base attack bonus).
The monk can’t use his natural weapon attacks as part of a
flurry of blows, but he can make natural weapon attacks in
addition to his flurry. Such attacks suffer the same –2 penalty
as the monk’s flurry attacks in addition to the normal –5
penalty for secondary natural attacks.
An 4th-level centaur monk has a base attack bonus of +7
(+4 from his 4 monstrous humanoid Hit Dice, and +3 from his
8 monk levels). If he performs a flurry of blows, he makes
three unarmed strikes, at +5/+5/+0. He can add two hoof
attacks at –2/–2 (–5 as secondary weapons, and –2 from the
flurry).

It seems that it's suggested that some creatures can use their natural attacks as secondary weapons in addition to regular weapon attacks, while others cannot.

I think there may be another faq entry that contradicts this actually... Lessee if I can find it...

Theli
2008-01-04, 10:28 PM
Ok, I think I found it...sorta:


What happens when creatures use their natural
weapons as secondary attacks along with a manufactured
D&D FAQ v.3.5 92 Update Version: 10/19/07
weapon? For example, lizardfolk have two claws that also
serve as hands. What happens when they wield a onehanded
weapon in one hand and nothing in the other? Do
they lose both claw attacks in exchange for their attacks
with the weapon?
Wielding a manufactured weapon doesn’t prevent a
creature from using all its natural weaponry, provided that the
creature is using the full attack action and the additional natural
weapons are free.
The example lizardfolk can’t make a claw attack with the
“hand” that holds its weapon, although it does get to attack
with the weapon itself. But, if it’s using the full attack action, it
can use its other claw as a natural secondary attack (–5 to
attack rolls, half Strength bonus), and can also bite as a natural
secondary attack. In effect, the lizardfolk is using its normal
full attack routine with the manufactured weapon attack
substituted for one claw attack.

This doesn't really contradict the previous faq entry, as lizardfolk actually do list a manufactured weapon/natural weapon combination as one of it's full attack options in it's stat block.

This strongly suggests that neither warforged, nor vampires (unless the vampire template was placed on a creature that could already do so, such as lizardfolk :p), can use their natural weapon as a secondary natural attack, as neither has a listing for full attacks that shows an example of both types of attacks used simultaneously. (One note on the warforged, I don't have the relevant Monster Manual...only the ECS where they were initially introduced. So maybe they included one there. I don't know.)

Theli
2008-01-04, 10:39 PM
GAH! More FAQ entries!


What happens when a monster has a high base attack
bonus, and it uses a manufactured weapon along with a
secondary natural weaponry? For instance, suppose a 5thlevel
lizardfolk fighter wields a battleaxe. What would this
creature’s attack routine be?
Just add the natural secondary attacks to the manufactured
attacks the creature can make. Assuming that the example
character has five fighter levels, she has a base attack bonus of
+6 (+1 for being a lizard folk, +5 for fighter levels). Assuming
the character doesn’t use a shield, she has two natural
secondary attacks available—her bite and her free claw. She
has a –5 penalty when using a natural secondary weapons. So,
when the character uses the full attack action, her attack routine
is +6/+1 melee (battleaxe)/+1 melee (bite)/+1 melee (claw).
However, if the example character were using the standard
attack action instead, she could make only one attack. This
single attack could be a +6 if she used the manufactured
weapon or a claw (a lizard folk’s claws are the primary natural
weapon), or +1 if the character chooses to bite. You always
take the secondary weapon penalty when you use a secondary
natural weapon (see the Monster Manual glossary).

...and...


When a creature has natural weaponry, do all its
natural weapons become secondary attacks when it uses a
manufactured weapon? If so, what happens to the damage
rating for a primary natural weapon that gets demoted to
secondary status?
When a creature uses both manufactured and natural
weapons together with the full attack action, treat the
manufactured weapon as the primary attack (using the
creature’s full attack bonus) and treat all the natural weapons as
secondary natural attacks (–5 attack penalty, or –2 if the
creature has the Multiattack feat).
The basic damage rating for a secondary natural weapon
doesn’t change, but the creature gets only half its Strength
bonus to damage for the secondary attack, even if it would
otherwise be a primary natural weapon. The troll entry in the
Monster Manual provides a good example of this.

So what do you learn from this? That WotC needs to take a look at rewriting portions of the FAQ...

Still, I don't see anything specifically contradicting the requirement for monsters to have an example of a combination attack before they can use it with any natural weapon... So I would suggest that the first entry still takes precedence.

NobleSavage
2008-01-05, 01:26 AM
I'm not sure if these directly apply, as it is speaking about Natural Attacks, not Slam attacks. The difference is with a Natural Attack you have a specific body part that you use, a Slam Attack is more like a Monk's strike, it can come from anywhere, knee, fist, elbow, face, etc. Therefore, it would seem it is always available when taking a full attack action.

Nebo_
2008-01-05, 01:31 AM
I'm not sure if these directly apply, as it is speaking about Natural Attacks, not Slam attacks. The difference is with a Natural Attack you have a specific body part that you use, a Slam Attack is more like a Monk's strike, it can come from anywhere, knee, fist, elbow, face, etc. Therefore, it would seem it is always available when taking a full attack action.

A slam attack is a natural attack.

tyckspoon
2008-01-05, 02:21 AM
GAH! More FAQ entries!

Still, I don't see anything specifically contradicting the requirement for monsters to have an example of a combination attack before they can use it with any natural weapon... So I would suggest that the first entry still takes precedence.

"Wielding a manufactured weapon doesn’t prevent a
creature from using all its natural weaponry, provided that the
creature is using the full attack action and the additional natural
weapons are free."

?? That one appears clear to me. All creatures that are capable of using a manufactured weapon in the first place (ie, they have hands or other dextrous manipulators) can use them in conjunction with their natural weapons, provided the natural weapon is not otherwise engaged in something like holding said manufactured weapon. The only way in which Slams are unclear in relation to this is determining what is actually used in a Slam so you can find out whether or not the necessary appendage is free.

I read the first FAQ entry quoted upthread as referring to clauses like the one in the Claws of the Beast power that says

If you attack with a manufactured weapon or another natural attack, you can’t make any claw attacks in that round. which are very explicit about it when they do appear.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-05, 04:45 AM
For some creatures I agree that it is unclear with what appendage the slam attack is made.

But if we consider teh case of the warforged I think it is quite clear that slams are made with their arms.

Both the warforged components and the fact that no stat block includes a full attack with both weapons and slam attacks support this.

In other cases applying common sense goes a long way in determining whether slams and weapons can be used together.

Theli
2008-01-05, 09:36 AM
?? That one appears clear to me. All creatures that are capable of using a manufactured weapon in the first place (ie, they have hands or other dextrous manipulators) can use them in conjunction with their natural weapons, provided the natural weapon is not otherwise engaged in something like holding said manufactured weapon. The only way in which Slams are unclear in relation to this is determining what is actually used in a Slam so you can find out whether or not the necessary appendage is free.

I read the first FAQ entry quoted upthread as referring to clauses like the one in the Claws of the Beast power that says
which are very explicit about it when they do appear.

That particular FAQ entry is explicitly about races that, again, explicitly are listed as able to use both manufactured weapons and natural weapons in the same full attack. It is only a broad interpretation that allows it to apply to ALL races which can use manufactured weapons and also have natural weapons.


But if we consider teh case of the warforged I think it is quite clear that slams are made with their arms.

Eh, the way I see how the battlefist might work is that it's simply a magical enhancement. I don't see it as showing that warforged must necessarily use an arm, or both arms, in a slam attack. It does improve unarmed strike after all, and I doubt the intention is to force a warforged monk to attack with the arm that has the battlefist attached in order to use a buffed unarmed strike... (Though I could be wrong.)

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-05, 09:53 AM
Eh, the way I see how the battlefist might work is that it's simply a magical enhancement.

It is a very specific magical enhancement unlike an Amulet of Mighty Fists, which in spite of its name can be used for all kinds of unarmed attacks.


I don't see it as showing that warforged must necessarily use an arm, or both arms, in a slam attack. It does improve unarmed strike after all, and I doubt the intention is to force a warforged monk to attack with the arm that has the battlefist attached in order to use a buffed unarmed strike... (Though I could be wrong.)

In my opinion there is no doubt. The battlefist is a gauntlet, not a boot or a tentacle ornament.
It clearly shows with what appendage a warforged makes slam attacks if anyone was in doubt before that.

The logical restriction it has on the monk's use of appendages for enhanced unarmed strikes is just an unfortunate side effect.

UserClone
2008-01-05, 10:31 AM
So an Amulet of Mighty Fists will work on a bite attack, right?

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-05, 10:34 AM
So an Amulet of Mighty Fists will work on a bite attack, right?

Exactly.

POST I SAID!