If a character has 3 natural weapons (2 claws and a tail), and has the feats Improved Multiattack (eliminates penalty to attack rolls for secondary attacks, but still uses 1/2 Strength damage bonus) and Improved Rapidstrike (can make up to 4 additional attacks with natural weapon pairs with a cumulative -5 penalty each), how many total attacks would he potentially be able to pull off in a single full-round action?

  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Where is the Improved Rapidstrike feat found? \$\endgroup\$ – Edward Goodson Apr 29 '13 at 23:37
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @EdwardGoodson Rapidstrike and its improved version are in the Draconomicon. \$\endgroup\$ – Ernir Apr 30 '13 at 0:15

Five: Three with one Claw, once with the other, once with the Tail

Improved Rapidstrike means that you get two extra attacks with one of your claws, and you still get your other claw attack and the tail attack (which are not affected by Rapidstrike), up to a maximum of five attacks.

Your attack routine, assuming +15 BAB (minimum for Imp. Rapidstrike) and 1d6 damage on each natural weapon, would be as follows:

+15/+11/+6 Claw (1d6+Str), +15 Claw (1d6+Str), +15 Tail (1d6+½Str)

The extra attacks granted by Improved Rapidstrike are not secondary attacks so they are not affected by Improved Multiattack. A pair of natural weapons can both be primary, so the second Claw attack isn’t affected either. Imp. Multiattack does affect the Tail attack, which is secondary; without it it would be at −5 or −2 with Multiattack.

Personally, without more secondary attacks, I wouldn’t spend the feats on Multiattack and Improved Multiattack. Even with a few more secondaries, I usually find Multiattack to be enough.

  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I think you might be misreading Imp. Rapidstrike: "you can make two or more attacks with one of those weapons." The intent is a bit unclear, but seems to be that you make 4 additional attacks with a cumulative -5 penalty on each (though the cumulative part is only explicitly mentioned in the table?) \$\endgroup\$ – starwed Apr 30 '13 at 5:42
  • \$\begingroup\$ Well, it does consistently mention a need for "at least one pair of natural weapons", so maybe it refers to only getting extra attacks from one pair? \$\endgroup\$ – Cobalt Apr 30 '13 at 13:16
  • \$\begingroup\$ @starwed Huh, you seem to be right. Wow, this is more complicated than I thought. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Apr 30 '13 at 14:30
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Cobalt The prerequisite has nothing to do with the effects. It is merely a prerequisite, the same way Cleave requires Power Attack. You don't only cleave while using Power Attack. \$\endgroup\$ – Zachiel Apr 30 '13 at 14:48
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I still think 4 attacks by way of alternating between the pair would make sense, since they're theoretically the same damage and doing 1-2-1-2 slash combos makes more sense than 1-2-1-1-1, for example. \$\endgroup\$ – Cobalt Apr 30 '13 at 20:13

He vould be able to make a grand total of 7 attacks. Five of those would be iterative attacks from his main weapon, with the usual cumulative penalties, while two would be his other two natural attacks, at his highest attack bonus due to Improved Multiattack.

This is without factoring in bonus attacks from haste or similar effects.

  • \$\begingroup\$ Improved Rapidstrike doesn't place a restriction based on BAB. You can always get 4 extra attacks with it. \$\endgroup\$ – starwed Apr 30 '13 at 3:37
  • \$\begingroup\$ Wow, it's an uber feat (but I see, requires 15 BAB to start with). I'm fixing it right now. \$\endgroup\$ – Zachiel Apr 30 '13 at 9:55
  • \$\begingroup\$ I'm unsure after re-reading the feat. Is the 5 maximum attacks related to the first claw or to all you natural weapons? Any official reading? \$\endgroup\$ – Zachiel Apr 30 '13 at 14:54
  • \$\begingroup\$ I think it only applies to a paired set of natural weapons, i.e. claws, but you only get the bonuses for the pair and not the individual claws, like you're alternating between them with each successive hit. \$\endgroup\$ – Cobalt May 1 '13 at 14:03
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Oh, as a fluff thing only. Because +20/+20/+15/+10/+5/+0 is different from +20/+20/+15/+15/+10/+10 \$\endgroup\$ – Zachiel May 2 '13 at 11:55

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.