Two handed fighting, multi-attack and claws.

[Rukia]

I'm sure this has been discussed ad nasuem, but I had a fairly simple question. How does a pair of claw attacks work when combined with a two handed weapon? Basically my character was raised from the undead as a "half undead"(using a homebrew template) and has gained a pair of 1d4 claw attacks. My character is a warblade 1/swordsage 2 and I have been deciding between focusing on TWF or THF. I have shadow blade feat but no weapon finesse yet as my str is only 1 point away from my dex. I was really considering going TWF so I can take advantage of shadow blade and assassin's stance in a few levels. However with the addition of the claw attacks and the fact that I can choose spiked chain which works with shadow blade, this now seems far superior. Claw won't get bonus damage from shadow blade, however it's a free attack(s) that I don't beleive penalizes my main attack.

Is there any way to reduce the -5 penalty with the claw? I thought I could take multiattack but it only works with 3 or more natural attacks and I only get 2. I guess TWF could theoretically work if you counted the claw as a weapon, though you take a penalty on both attacks. Perhaps just using the claws as a secondary attack with the -5 penalty is good enough since they're basically free already. And there is no penalty for attempting the attacks.

Also what is the consensus on a pair of claws with a THW? By RAW you could theoretically swing with the two hander, release a hand and claw attack, then switch hands and claw with the other. I know this is a bit contrived but by RAW it should work correct? Also are the secondary natural attacks only used on a full attack or also on any standard attack?

[DonDuckie]

By RAW you need to have hands free to make claw attacks.
When using a manufactored weapon you can't use natural attacks from limbs used to wield the weapon.
Combining manufactored weapons with natural attacks makes all natural attacks count as secondary, at a -5 penalty, -2 with multiattack feat.

NB. this is pathfinder, but as I recall 3.5 is the same.

EDIT:
For TWF, I think it says, specifically, you must wield two weapons by RAW, but can make an unarmed attack, it doesn't mention natural weapons, IIRC.
But you are considered armed when you have natural weapons. So it's fair to interpret it as legal to TWF with claws.

[Keld Denar]

You can't TWF with claws as one of the weapons. They are natural weapons and thus follow completely different rules. The only natural weapon you can TWF with is the UAS, and then only because it follows the attacking rules of manufactured weapons even though its natural.

Also, as noted, if you use a limb with a weapon in it to make a manufactured weapon attack, you forfeit that natural weapon. Thats the reason that giants don't get slams in their full attack when they attack with 2-handed weapons. The trick to natural weapons is to NOT use a weapon that occupies a limb. Unarmed Strikes are the primary choice, but weighted cloaks, armor spikes, and boot blades work well also.

Funny story, if you TWF and use natural weapons in the same round, the natural weapons don't suffer your TWFing penalties. The penalties listed only apply to main hand and offhand attacks, of which natural weapons are neither. So you could attack with your UAS as your main hand (-2), armor spikes for your offhand (-2), and still claw/claw/bite (-5) if you had it.

Check out the mini-guide I cowrote. It has a lot of information on the interaction between natural and manufactured weapons.

[Darrin]

By RAW you need to have hands free to make claw attacks.
When using a manufactored weapon you can't use natural attacks from limbs used to wield the weapon.

Minor point of completely pointless pedantry: there is no such Rule As Written. It's heavily implied from all the stat blocks in the MMs, so much so that arguing otherwise will probably get books thrown at your head, but there is no such written rule.

[Rukia]

I think the easiest way to take advantage of this situation would be to go unarmed swordsage and fight without weapons. Then I can always have my claws as secondary natural attacks. However I don't have high enough wisdom to get a decent armor bonus without armor on so I'd suffer. Yes most DM's allow you to use armor if you gain it from another class, but my DM has already stated that if I take unarmed swordsage then I lose my unarmed damage if I put on armor.

One question on this though. A monk's unarmed strike is considered a natural weapon. Would unarmed strike and 2 claws therefore count as the 3 natural attacks required for multiattack feat?

[Divide by Zero]

I think the easiest way to take advantage of this situation would be to go unarmed swordsage and fight without weapons. Then I can always have my claws as secondary natural attacks. However I don't have high enough wisdom to get a decent armor bonus without armor on so I'd suffer. Yes most DM's allow you to use armor if you gain it from another class, but my DM has already stated that if I take unarmed swordsage then I lose my unarmed damage if I put on armor.

UASS still gets their armor bonus in light armor, they just lose proficiency. So either burn a feat or get the ACP down to 0, and you can wear all the light armor you want.

[Keld Denar]

One question on this though. A monk's unarmed strike is considered a natural weapon. Would unarmed strike and 2 claws therefore count as the 3 natural attacks required for multiattack feat?

Yes. Unarmed Strikes made by ANYONE are considered natural weapons, not just monks. The only thing un-natural about them is that they get iterative attacks like a manufactured weapon. Other than that, they are 100% natural weapons. The only difference between a monk and a non-monk's UAS is that a monk is a legal target for Magic Weapon or Magic Fang, while a non-monk is only a legal target for Magic Fang. AFAICT, thats about the only difference.

[Larpus]

Yes. Unarmed Strikes made by ANYONE are considered natural weapons, not just monks. The only thing un-natural about them is that they get iterative attacks like a manufactured weapon. Other than that, they are 100% natural weapons. The only difference between a monk and a non-monk's UAS is that a monk is a legal target for Magic Weapon or Magic Fang, while a non-monk is only a legal target for Magic Fang. AFAICT, thats about the only difference.

Unarmed Strikes are just that, Unarmed Strikes, normally they don't even deal lethal damage (so they can't be "weapons").

And a Monk (or anyone with Improved Unarmed Strike) is considered armed even if unarmed, so it's also not really a Natural Weapon by RAW, it's a manufactured weapon; however, it does count as a Natural Weapon for spells and the such that affect Natural Weapons; but are not estated to be Natural Weapons themselves, only implied if that much.

Improved Unarmed Strike [General]

Benefit
You are considered to be armed even when unarmed —that is, you do not provoke attacks or opportunity from armed opponents when you attack them while unarmed. However, you still get an attack of opportunity against any opponent who makes an unarmed attack on you.

In addition, your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your option.

Normal
Without this feat, you are considered unarmed when attacking with an unarmed strike, and you can deal only nonlethal damage with such an attack.

Special
A monk automatically gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat at 1st level. She need not select it.

A fighter may select Improved Unarmed Strike as one of his fighter bonus feats.

Unarmed Strike

At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk’s attacks may be with either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may even make unarmed strikes with her hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply her full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all her unarmed strikes.

Usually a monk’s unarmed strikes deal lethal damage, but she can choose to deal nonlethal damage instead with no penalty on her attack roll. She has the same choice to deal lethal or nonlethal damage while grappling.

A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.

A monk also deals more damage with her unarmed strikes than a normal person would, as shown on Table: The Monk. The unarmed damage on Table: The Monk is for Medium monks. A Small monk deals less damage than the amount given there with her unarmed attacks, while a Large monk deals more damage; see Table: Small or Large Monk Unarmed Damage.

It's quite a bit of crazy talk and RAW vs RAI, so I'd check with your DM about his ruling on this.

[Keld Denar]

Unarmed Strikes are natural attacks. They simply are. Rules of the Game has ruled it as such. Unlike all other natural attacks, they follow some of the rules for manufactured weapons (get iterative attacks), and some of their own special rules (arn't armed without IUAS, deal non-lethal damage, etc). They are still natural weapons, though.

They are more natural attacks with exceptions than they are manufactured weapons with exceptions.

Also, saps normally deal non-lethal damage. Does that mean that they aren't "weapons" either, by your definition? Most things have exceptions. Some just have more exceptions than others. UASs have the most. They are still closer to natural weapons than manufactured weapons.

[Larpus]

Unarmed Strikes are natural attacks. They simply are. Rules of the Game has ruled it as such. Unlike all other natural attacks, they follow some of the rules for manufactured weapons (get iterative attacks), and some of their own special rules (arn't armed without IUAS, deal non-lethal damage, etc). They are still natural weapons, though.

They are more natural attacks with exceptions than they are manufactured weapons with exceptions.

Really?

Oh well, I thought that it was the other way around since my DM always ruled it as such and the rules that I quoted seemed to support this despite not actually denying it.

Still, never seen anything mentioning that Unarmed Strikes (without being improved) were considered Natural Weapons, where is it written as such?

[Darrin]

Still, never seen anything mentioning that Unarmed Strikes (without being improved) were considered Natural Weapons, where is it written as such?

Skip Williams' "Rules of the Game: Unarmed Attacks (Part One)".

Unfortunately, Skip disagrees with Keld:

Unarmed Attack/Unarmed Strike: These two terms are used interchangeably to describe an attack with an appendage that is not a natural weapon, such as a human's fist. An unarmed attack usually deals nonlethal damage and provokes an attack of opportunity from the creature being attacked.

And from Part Two:

Before we move on, it's worth pointing out that a character making an unarmed attack, even with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, does not have natural weapons. Nor is a natural weapon a substitute for the Improved Unarmed Strike feat.

(emphasis added)

Note: It's important to recognize that while Skip is one of the original designers, his Rules of the Game articles are not RAW or official errata. The FAQ, core rulebooks, and various sourcebooks are all over the place with unarmed strikes/natural attacks, and have a habit of contradicting each other or just confusing things further.

If you plan on doing anything with unarmed strikes/natural attacks, then it's best to talk it over with your DM, maybe send him the link to Keld's mini-guide, go over where the rules aren't clear, and have him issue some general rulings on how he wants to handle things in his campaign.

[Cieyrin]

Check out the mini-guide I cowrote. It has a lot of information on the interaction between natural and manufactured weapons.

Slightly off-topic but there's a slight issue with the guide, in that the Necklace of Natural Weapons can be built for more than a single natural weapon, you just have to invest in it up-front. If you have lots of natural attacks and all you're looking for is beating DR/Magic, the Amulet of Mighty Fists will probably do you better. The NoNW is just way more modular and is a nice alternative to Kensai levels, since gold tends to be more free than levels are, at least in some of the games I've played in.

[Keld Denar]

Yea, I'm aware of that. Solo wrote that part. I'll pass it along to him tonight.

[noparlpf]

I don't have any useful input, just a related question.
If you have a claw attack, can you make iterative Unarmed Strike attacks (for high BaB) and then make a claw attack at -5 as a secondary attack? Say 16th level, BaB +12/+7/+2. Can you make three UaS attacks at those base attack bonuses and then a claw attack at +7?

[Keld Denar]

Yes. That is 100% accurate (unless you have Multiattack, of course).

UASs are special in that you can make them with ANY part of your body. Thus, they don't interfere with your natural weapons like holding a sword in that clawed hand would. You could get a similar result with a weapon like Armor Spikes, or similar something that you don't wield in your hands.