Specifically, this is referring to creatures with a Bite and two Claw attacks. As far as I understood previously, they are both Primary natural attacks, and ruled that my player's Eidolon could use them all at full BAB in a full attack.

My basis for that was as such; Natural attacks are listed in this way (using the grizzly bear example I'd seen in another question)

Melee 2 claws +7 (1d6+5 plus grab), bite +7 (1d6+5)

Whereas Weapon attacks for say, a Cyclops, are listed this way;

Melee greataxe +11/+6 (3d6+7/×3)

It pretty clearly marks the BAB -5, indicating it's full attack setup. But I've also read that the PF rules for natural attacks are basically the same as 3.5. So, in that line of thinking, I've pulled up the listing for a tiger, which specifies full attacks as such;

2 claws +9 melee (1d8+6) and bite +4 melee (2d6+3)

So! I'm fairly confused. I'm thinking that if my player's Eidolon wants to full attack anymore, should it use the -5 BAB (and half strength) for his bite?

  • \$\begingroup\$ Which listing? The PFSRD shows a tiger attacking at basically the same accuracy with bite and claws. \$\endgroup\$ – gatherer818 Dec 11 '15 at 15:20

3.5, if I recall correctly, made the first listed natural attack primary, and the rest secondary. This isn't anything like Pathfinder's system, which marks each attack as primary or secondary based on the attack. Bites and claws are both primary and should use the creature's full accuracy unless the creature opts to use manufactured weapons in the same attack pattern, which downgrades all their natural attacks to secondary.


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