Natural Attack Following an Armed Attack (With a Two-Hand Weapon): Does it work?

[Argent Fatalis]

This is all in regards to 3.5e;

During a full-attack, provided you have a natural attack, say, a clawing attack, can you follow up your armed attack (with a two-handed weapon) with a natural attack?

"You swing your greatsword, strike the target, and follow through with a claw attack using your weak hand after."

If I remember correctly then the answer is technically yes, it should flat out work and the only downside is, is that this natural attack takes a -5 attack roll penalty.

To me it makes logical sense, but I didn't write 3.5e's rules and I can't manage to figure out where such a rule like this would be, if it exists.

This is also assuming there isn't some feat that doesn't explicitly allow this should it not exist; if such a feat does exist, I'd be equally curious.

[littha]

You can follow your normal iterative attacks with natural attacks (only while full attacking) however, you cant use a claw attack if you are using that hand for holding your weapon.

Cant give page references, away from my books. Will update later if nobody else does first.

[Jackinthegreen]

Take a look at http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=8423.0.

Basically, the designers skirted around actually saying that if you wield a manufactured weapon with a limb that also has a claw attack, you can't do a claw attack with it after the weapon attack sequence.  Why did they do it that way? I suppose because they didn't think people would dissect the rules so brutally as to squabble over whether claws can come into play when the clawed limb is used to hold and wield a weapon.

There is the FAQ entry which is in the first post, but some may not find that satisfactory enough since it's the FAQ.

[Argent Fatalis]

Ah, I remember reading that topic on here a while back, which is what led me to where I am now.

It is understandable that a limb with weapon in hand can't reasonably make a claw attack. In my rationalization, that strictly means the primary hand, making it possible to do with a two-handed weapon, provided the claw attack was made with the off-hand. But seeing as the game doesn't split into primary and off-hands, and they didn't give an explicit answer, I suppose its left up to the realm what your DM will allow.

I haven't run into this issue... Yet.

The homebrew class I am building for 3.5e has access to claws and two-handed weapons, and the way as currently written states, "This claw attack may be utilized as one additional attack during a Ferocious Assault; the attack roll penalty for her doing so is her base attack bonus -5 as normal."

The issue comes up for me is that it isn't breaking the rules, as there's no specific rule, but I'd rather avoid toying with such an area unless there is enough reasonable doubt present, and as such do you believe there is enough doubt (given the core rules as they stand) to say that a secondary attack can be made after striking with a two-handed weapon? Or, based on the topic Jack posted, it functions if written as a "free attack" (if that is correct, then my above statement regarding the claw attack during Ferocious Assault works fine as is).

For reference, Ferocious Assault is essentially a (regularly) armed version of a Monk's Flurry of Blows, and thus enables its beneficiary to wield a weapon other than their bare fist or a Monk specific weapon.

[nijineko]

hmmm. just visualizing this, not thinking rules here, but it seems like one could attack with a two handed weapon, let go with one hand, and attack with a claw. i think it would be similar to performing a hilt-punch with a sword-like weapon. or releasing the weapon on the backswing and swing the clawed limb around in a reverse strike, perhaps?

[Argent Fatalis]

hmmm. just visualizing this, not thinking rules here, but it seems like one could attack with a two handed weapon, let go with one hand, and attack with a claw. i think it would be similar to performing a hilt-punch with a sword-like weapon. or releasing the weapon on the backswing and swing the clawed limb around in a reverse strike, perhaps?

It works in thought, and may also work in the rules. The latter of which is my big concern.

[Kethrian]

The off-hand is still in use during attacks with the greatsword, and therefore is unavailable for more attacks.  Would you allow someone to wield a greatsword and get extra attacks with their spiked gauntlet, too?  Same kind of thing.

Now, that said, I suppose you could homebrew a feat...

[Argent Fatalis]

True enough, it is wielded at the same time and though it seems possible in thought to preform, in the mechanics it doesn't seem to work accordingly. I believe the answer will be is if I add the following stipulation to the attack sequence;

"This claw attack may be utilized as one additional attack following a Ferocious Assault; the attack roll penalty for her doing so is her base attack bonus -5 as normal. This added claw attack is treated as a separate attack."

Essentially you swing said sword X amount of times and preform a claw strike following the last swing. Thematically its the same, but mechanically different, but provided the above it should read as if the greatsword is not preoccupying that particular hand any longer; it doesn't disappear or go anywhere else, it simply is now being held with one hand (as if one had unsheathed the blade but not entered a fighting stance) if people want to be fluffy about it, which is fine by me. The class is quite fluffy as is, but I would rather it mechanically works correctly right out of the box versus having some conflicting or contradicting material.

[Kethrian]

That sounds fair.  Though if you are taking one hand off the weapon, you would no longer be wielding it properly for things like AoOs...

[Argent Fatalis]

Interesting point, but that works just fine for a later class related ability that handles Attacks of Opportunity specifically, and requires some level progression before one gains access to it. Not only is it mechanically slightly different than say, Combat Reflexes, if it had the stipulation in it that you could once again wield your primary weapon after making a claw attack previously, its flavor and importance would be all the better.

Or one could claim, based on some of the lore for the class that the character is uncharacteristically fast and thus able to do so (I mean they did just make a flurry of greatsword swings back to back to back).

In the case of the latter, perhaps;

"This claw attack may be utilized as one additional attack following a Ferocious Assault; the attack roll penalty for her doing so is her base attack bonus -5 as normal. This added claw attack is treated as a separate attack, but allows her to make attacks, such as an Attack of Opportunity, with her equipped weapon afterward."

[NunoM]

A similar matter came up in a recent question regarding two-handed weapons and armor spikes.
I'm perfectly ok with using the full-attack with the two-handed weapon and armor spikes as an "off-hand" attack (applying TWF penalties, of course), because the spikes are attached to the armor and they function exactly like, say, a monks unarmed attack (which can be made with whichever body part is available for it).

On one hand (no pun intended), as per RAW, the claw attack shouldn't be allowed, because you're using a manufactured weapon with your hands.
On the other, there's that nasty/handy rule that states that removing a hand from a two-handed weapon, and putting it back, is a free action (great for caster-fighters like the Duskblade). Just remember that you can't perform free actions when it's not your turn, so, if you don't put your grip back on the two-handed weapon, it won't be ready for AoOs.

Since it's homebrew stuff, you are, of course, entitled to come up with everything you want, so if the claw is to be used along with the full-attack of the greatsword, i suggest that you, at least, apply a TWF penalty to it.
If it's a question of flavor, you could instead allow the attacks to be done interchangeably.
Example: BAB 15/10/5
Attacks: any combination using claws and the greatsword (GS) with the normal attack bonus.
CLAW/GS/CLAW, CLAW/CLAW/GS, GS/GS/GS, GS/GS/CLAW, etc.

BTW, i'm not sure if i understood your thoughts correctly (it's late here and my brain is half asleep), but AoOs are already separate from the normal attacks...
Example:
If you're wielding a guisarme (two-handed polearm, 10ft. reach) and your armor is equipped with armor spikes, you can perform a full-attack with the guisarme during your turn and later perform AoOs normally using your armor spikes or the guisarm (whichever threatens the opponent) without penalties.

[Argent Fatalis]

Regarding the penalties applied, it uses the standard penalty for making a natural attack second, as per the SRD that states, "Attacks with secondary natural weapons are less effective and are made with a -5 penalty on the attack roll, no matter how many there are." As the greatsword is considered your primary weapon and your claw strike a secondary (barring yourself having no equipped weapon).

Seeing as the attack is "free" and only triggers when making a Ferocious Assault, I believe given the prior information put forward that it should fall under that "free" attack category if all preconditions are met, and you cannot use it for Attacks of Opportunity. Its more or less to accommodate the issue Kethrian brought up regarding taking your hand off a weapon.

While indeed homebrew, I'm doing my best to make it function as it should within the rules and avoid exploiting or dancing around them (or ignoring them all together).

Unfortunately it is not a matter of flavor, as novel as it is (the claw strike uses different dice and has some other different mechanics separate of your primary weapon).

[NunoM]

Ok, then...

I can further suggest the rules for the monk's "flurry of blows" ability, which can be made using monk special weapons interchangeably, if desired. If you assume that the character is a sort of special monk that uses the greatsword as it's special weapon then you're golden, and it doesn't go (too much) against already existing rules.

[Argent Fatalis]

You make an interesting point, NunoM, in that when I wrote the rules for Ferocious Assault I did not specify as to what it considered your specific weapon, as I had intended to allow the class to fight with its claws should it find itself disarmed or sundered, or if the situation didn't favor wielding an actual weapon (such as an environment where walking around with a weapon wouldn't be appropriate).

With that, I believe a new clause need be added that Ferocious Assault only defines its damage based off what your current "primary" weapon is. For example, being armed is considered your primary, and claws are considered secondary. Without a weapon, or electing to forgo the weapon, the claws are treated as the primary weapon. Otherwise you could weave claw and weapon attacks, and seeing how they both can be enchanted in different ways, it could lead to some unintended consequences.

As written Ferocious Assault states;

"A Champion of the Ferine can channel her wild soul into a ferocious onslaught of attacks, battering the helpless prey before it can retaliate. When doing so, she may make one extra attack in a round at her highest base attack bonus, but this attack takes a -2 penalty, as does each other attack made that round. The resulting modified base attack bonuses are shown in the Ferocious Assault Attack Bonus column. This penalty applies for 1 round, so it also affects attacks of opportunity the Champion might make before her next action. When a Champion reaches 5th level, the penalty lessens to -1, and at 9th level it disappears. A Champion must use a full attack action to strike with such an onslaught."

And I believe would be corrected by the following statement;

"A Champion of the Ferine can channel her wild soul into a ferocious onslaught of attacks, battering the helpless prey before it can retaliate. When doing so, she may make one extra attack in a round at her highest base attack bonus, but this attack takes a -2 penalty, as does each other attack made that round. The resulting modified base attack bonuses are shown in the Ferocious Assault Attack Bonus column. This penalty applies for 1 round, so it also affects attacks of opportunity the Champion might make before her next action. When a Champion reaches 5th level, the penalty lessens to -1, and at 9th level it disappears. A Champion must use a full attack action to strike with such an onslaught. All attacks made through Ferocious Assault utilize a Champion of the Ferine's equipped weapon; in the event a Champion of the Ferine wishes to forgo her weapon, or otherwise lacks one, she may make a Ferocious Assault utilizing her claws or unarmed strikes, and in doing so may only choose one form of attack as if she were armed with a weapon."

[NunoM]

Hmm... From what i understand, the Champion must make all the attacks with the equipped weapon OR the claws OR the unarmed strike (which in this case counts as armed), but not interchangeably, correct?

Just add something to handle double weapons and TWF (what if he's using two weapons? can he do the off-hand attack as well?) and you're done, IMO...

[Argent Fatalis]

That is correct, there are no interchangeable attacks while making a Ferocious Assault; you elect one weapon to use for its implementation.

As for double weapons and TWF, a Champion of the Ferine is barred from both (similar as to how a Druid is barred from certain weapon types).

[Jackinthegreen]

For what it's worth, druids haven't been barred from certain weapons since the 3.5 revision.  They are barred from metal armor and shields though.

[Argent Fatalis]

Hmm... I suppose the best way then to have worded that was "they have a limited selection of equipment by default and are barred from using certain makes".