Five Differences Between Starfinder Rules and Pathfinder Rules

Torbyne wrote:

Azten wrote:

Sadly that makes no sense at all. If you were a race that had four arms you would be likely to learn how to use all four arms to shoot four guns.

If you dont have enough eyes to focus on four targets you still might not be able to multi-task with all four of those arms at once... But in table top games its all an abstraction anyways.

We always assumed they had mouths under their headwear. They could be extra eyeballs for all we know.

Mating eyes, it is obscene to use them for aiming at things. Distant relatives of the Shirren you know.

If I were that kasatha, I might be holding two pistols, one melee weapon, and a utility item of some kind, or potentially two melee weapons and one two-handed ranged weapon for one particular fun build, or one unwieldy doshko and one laser doshko so I can swap out when I move up and when I can full attack, and a few other possibilities. Those four arms really open up your options for some amazing combos, but they don't double your attacks over other characters and leave non-kasatha in your dust.

Nice. That sounds like pretty much the only reasonably balanced way to handle this.

And as someone who dislikes how painfully slow combat gets in Pathfinder once players start getting lots of attacks, I'm happy to hear about all of the steps the developers have taken to reduce the number of attacks players can take to a reasonable level.

And since in my experience getting lots of attacks that you can pile static bonuses on is one the big reasons high-level play devolves into rocket tag, I'm doubly pleased. Awesome!

So far, I'm loving all the new mechanics of Starfinder I mean Pathfinder 2.0 but actually Star Wars SAGA Revised. It's almost like if Paizo hired Owen K. C. Stephens...

Azten wrote:

Sadly that makes no sense at all. If you were a race that had four arms you would be likely to learn how to use all four arms to shoot four guns.

If you dont have enough eyes to focus on four targets you still might not be able to multi-task with all four of those arms at once... But in table top games its all an abstraction anyways.

Wow, that discussion takes me back.

I am sad because it is sounding like TWF is pretty much dead and that is one of my go to fighting styles. I am still hopeful for Starfinder

I am sad because it is sounding like TWF is pretty much dead and that is one of my go to fighting styles. I am still hopeful for Starfinder

I've found two-weapon use to be a little more common in SF than PF since you can do so effectively without needing a giant feat chain with high stat prerequisites, but it just manifests in different ways. For instance, one of our most effective playtest PCs in my group was an operative with a pistol in one hand and a knife in the other. He was always moving around, blasting some foes, flanking and stabbing others, and providing the solarian flanks.

brad2411 wrote:

I am sad because it is sounding like TWF is pretty much dead and that is one of my go to fighting styles. I am still hopeful for Starfinder

I've found two-weapon use to be a little more common in SF than PF since you can do so effectively without needing a giant feat chain with high stat prerequisites, but it just manifests in different ways. For instance, one of our most effective playtest PCs in my group was an operative with a pistol in one hand and a knife in the other. He was always moving around, blasting some foes, flanking and stabbing others, and providing the solarian flanks.

That sounds amazing!

brad2411 wrote:

I am sad because it is sounding like TWF is pretty much dead and that is one of my go to fighting styles. I am still hopeful for Starfinder

I've found two-weapon use to be a little more common in SF than PF since you can do so effectively without needing a giant feat chain with high stat prerequisites, but it just manifests in different ways. For instance, one of our most effective playtest PCs in my group was an operative with a pistol in one hand and a knife in the other. He was always moving around, blasting some foes, flanking and stabbing others, and providing the solarian flanks.

Thanks Mark that does sound cool but with what has been said of the rules that build is sounding more like a character with two weapons in his hands then actual two weapon fighting. I think the biggest issue that I am having is that I can't see the bigger picture of the rules.

Sadly that makes no sense at all. If you were a race that had four arms you would be likely to learn how to use all four arms to shoot four guns.

I do not shoot with my hand; he who shoots with his hand has forgotten the face of his father. I shoot with my mind.

― Stephen King, The Gunslinger

Seriously though, just because you have four hands doesn't mean you can aim four guns at the same time. Otherwise, surely the military would issue all soldiers two handguns?

Mark Seifter wrote:

brad2411 wrote:

I am sad because it is sounding like TWF is pretty much dead and that is one of my go to fighting styles. I am still hopeful for Starfinder

I've found two-weapon use to be a little more common in SF than PF since you can do so effectively without needing a giant feat chain with high stat prerequisites, but it just manifests in different ways. For instance, one of our most effective playtest PCs in my group was an operative with a pistol in one hand and a knife in the other. He was always moving around, blasting some foes, flanking and stabbing others, and providing the solarian flanks.

Thanks Mark that does sound cool but with what has been said of the rules that build is sounding more like a character with two weapons in his hands then actual two weapon fighting. I think the biggest issue that I am having is that I can't see the bigger picture of the rules.

That's a fair assessment, and it depends a lot on what "actual two-weapon fighting" really means to you. You're absolutely right that if it directly means "I have two or more weapons, and because of this I make more attacks each round than someone with one weapon would" then Starfinder doesn't have that, but if it means "I have two or more weapons in hand throughout most fights and I fight with both of them; I mix them up attack-by-attack or round-by-round based on the tactical situation" then it's easier than ever to play that character, especially with a kasatha.

What Mark is describing sounds like TWF to me, but I haven't seen it in a huge space of time because people want to move around.

I'm still hoping that there is an improved version of Multi Weapon Attack that allows you to gain two attacks as a Standard action. Even if it is -4/-4 while moving, but -2/-2 while stationary.

brad2411 wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

brad2411 wrote:

I am sad because it is sounding like TWF is pretty much dead and that is one of my go to fighting styles. I am still hopeful for Starfinder

I've found two-weapon use to be a little more common in SF than PF since you can do so effectively without needing a giant feat chain with high stat prerequisites, but it just manifests in different ways. For instance, one of our most effective playtest PCs in my group was an operative with a pistol in one hand and a knife in the other. He was always moving around, blasting some foes, flanking and stabbing others, and providing the solarian flanks.

Thanks Mark that does sound cool but with what has been said of the rules that build is sounding more like a character with two weapons in his hands then actual two weapon fighting. I think the biggest issue that I am having is that I can't see the bigger picture of the rules.

That's a fair assessment, and it depends a lot on what "actual two-weapon fighting" really means to you. You're absolutely right that if it directly means "I have two or more weapons, and because of this I make more attacks each round than someone with one weapon would" then Starfinder doesn't have that, but if it means "I have two or more weapons in hand throughout most fights and I fight with both of them; I mix them up attack-by-attack or round-by-round based on the tactical situation" then it's easier than ever to play that character, especially with a kasatha.

Swiss Army Kasatha? :P

brad2411 wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

brad2411 wrote:

I am sad because it is sounding like TWF is pretty much dead and that is one of my go to fighting styles. I am still hopeful for Starfinder

I've found two-weapon use to be a little more common in SF than PF since you can do so effectively without needing a giant feat chain with high stat prerequisites, but it just manifests in different ways. For instance, one of our most effective playtest PCs in my group was an operative with a pistol in one hand and a knife in the other. He was always moving around, blasting some foes, flanking and stabbing others, and providing the solarian flanks.

Thanks Mark that does sound cool but with what has been said of the rules that build is sounding more like a character with two weapons in his hands then actual two weapon fighting. I think the biggest issue that I am having is that I can't see the bigger picture of the rules.

That's a fair assessment, and it depends a lot on what "actual two-weapon fighting" really means to you. You're absolutely right that if it directly means "I have two or more weapons, and because of this I make more attacks each round than someone with one weapon would" then Starfinder doesn't have that, but if it means "I have two or more weapons in hand throughout most fights and I fight with both of them; I mix them up attack-by-attack or round-by-round based on the tactical situation" then it's easier than ever to play that character, especially with a kasatha.

Thanks Mark that really explains what I am looking for in TWF. I can see why it would make playing the certain characters to easier to play.

#1 Interesting... I'll leave judgment until I see it in action. We'll see how this and healing interact and if it's worth the extra complexity.

#2 Like #1, we'll see. The lack of touch AC makes me curious how casters will 'hit' with spells.

#3 Hmmm... Seems like you'd have more rocket-tag, getting bigger/better attacks instead of multiple attacks.

#4-5 Simplified seems good IMO. Less fiddly bits to worry about is a fine idea.

What Mark is describing sounds like TWF to me, but I haven't seen it in a huge space of time because people want to move around.

I'm still hoping that there is an improved version of Multi Weapon Attack that allows you to gain two attacks as a Standard action. Even if it is -4/-4 while moving, but -2/-2 while stationary.

In Pathfinder Math i could see something like that as a special ability for Soldiers or as a rider effect on trick attacks. As is, Cleave looks like it might be similar if somewhat more situational.

#1 Interesting... I'll leave judgment until I see it in action. We'll see how this and healing interact and if it's worth the extra complexity.

#2 Like #1, we'll see. The lack of touch AC makes me curious how casters will 'hit' with spells.

#3 Hmmm... Seems like you'd have more rocket-tag, getting bigger/better attacks instead of multiple attacks.

#4-5 Simplified seems good IMO. Less fiddly bits to worry about is a fine idea.

So it looks like a lot of evocation types of spells will target EAC which Mr. Seifter is hinting is usually a fair bit lower than KAC and all of our current casters are 3/4 BAB who will probably have a decent DEX mod... it makes sense to me that they could land their spells still. likewise why blaster wizards fell out of favor, overly relying on book knowledge that they couldnt land a hit in practice. Failing that, just spam Magic Missile across the board, all spell slots, all levels, all day M&M club!

Wonder if i can get an under barrel wand bracket for a pump action wand of Magic Missile to clear trenches...

Is there anyway to use pistols in melee without provoking the AoO? or to dislodge the bayonet from your opponent by discharging the shotgun or flamethrower it is attached too?

Otherwise, surely the military would issue all soldiers two handguns?

Speaking from experience, no.

You're absolutely right that if it directly means "I have two or more weapons, and because of this I make more attacks each round than someone with one weapon would" then Starfinder doesn't have that, but if it means "I have two or more weapons in hand throughout most fights and I fight with both of them; I mix them up attack-by-attack or round-by-round based on the tactical situation" then it's easier than ever to play that character, especially with a kasatha.

So if I am reading this right the only benefit to using say a pistol in each hand (assuming that is the kind of character you want to play) is the choice of what gun to shoot with the exact same number of attacks.

So for example a Kasatha wielding 4 pistols will have the identical ranged combat effectiveness of a 2 armed race using one pistol and a knife, assuming all the pistols and other stats are identical.

I guess that means wielding 2 melee weapons at once is similar? No reason at all to do so unless you somehow get better bonuses with the second weapon (which you could always do in Pathfinder but it was never two weapon fighting).

Not sure I am liking that.

So, a Kasatha wielding 4 pistols would still only make 2 attacks per round? Is this absolutely correct?

There's a feat option any character with 4 or more arms could take to give a new options, but otherwise yes.

So for example a Kasatha wielding 4 pistols will have the identical ranged combat effectiveness of a 2 armed race using one pistol and a knife, assuming all the pistols and other stats are identical.

Nope, as Owen mentioned earlier, you can feat into that multi-pistol character reducing the penalty from full attack by firing from multiple pistols, so you're at an advantage there. And that's, as you say, assuming all the pistols and other stats are identical, which isn't as flexible a choice to make as varying it up with KAC/EAC, lines, autofire, or other options.

Having played DnD et al since,well let's just say more than 35 years, I come to the conclusion that (3.0/3.5/PF) Two Weapon Fighting is a conceit. One I have enjoyed immensely, but a conceit nonetheless. Having seen actual two weapon fighting and on screen, much of this style is all about deflection, feint and parry to set up for a strike with one of those weapons, as described upthread.

I'm happy to see how this all works out when the game (that is not Pathfinder, but is its own, however similar thing) launches.

Gilfalas wrote:

So for example a Kasatha wielding 4 pistols will have the identical ranged combat effectiveness of a 2 armed race using one pistol and a knife, assuming all the pistols and other stats are identical.

Nope, as Owen mentioned earlier, you can feat into that multi-pistol character reducing the penalty from full attack by firing from multiple pistols, so you're at an advantage there. And that's, as you say, assuming all the pistols and other stats are identical, which isn't as flexible a choice to make as varying it up with KAC/EAC, lines, autofire, or other options.

Wait now I am confused. You can get one attack at full or 2 attacks at -4 each. I assume that the two attacks are with the same weapon.

If I have 2 weapons wielded is there an additional penalty for doing a full attack and taking one shot with say 'the left' and one shot with 'the right'?

Or is it I full attack with 2 pistols. I have -4 to hit on both shots if I use one pistol but less of a penalty if I use both pistols, one for each shot and have that feat your talking about?

And is that ONLY for 4+ armed creatures?

Or is it I full attack with 2 pistols. I have -4 to hit on both shots if I use one pistol but less of a penalty if I use both pistols, one for each shot and have that feat your talking about?

This one. Also this is different from the feat Owen was talking about 4 posts up for 4-armed characters. It's something Owen mentioned quite a few posts back.

Gilfalas wrote:

Or is it I full attack with 2 pistols. I have -4 to hit on both shots if I use one pistol but less of a penalty if I use both pistols, one for each shot and have that feat your talking about?

This one. Also this is different from the feat Owen was talking about 4 posts up for 4-armed characters. It's something Owen mentioned quite a few posts back.

Thank you for the answer.

This makes me now wonder if quick draw is still a feat/factor in the game combat system.

I guess having more than one gun out also potentially means less time lost in combat reloading, if that is even a factor.

4 armed pistolero's could spend more time accurate shooting 2 seperate guns while reloading the other two guns with the off hands?

Mark Seifter wrote:

Gilfalas wrote:

Or is it I full attack with 2 pistols. I have -4 to hit on both shots if I use one pistol but less of a penalty if I use both pistols, one for each shot and have that feat your talking about?

This one. Also this is different from the feat Owen was talking about 4 posts up for 4-armed characters. It's something Owen mentioned quite a few posts back.

Thank you for the answer.

This makes me now wonder if quick draw is still a feat/factor in the game combat system.

I guess having more than one gun out also potentially means less time lost in combat reloading, if that is even a factor.

4 armed pistolero's could spend more time accurate shooting 2 seperate guns while reloading the other two guns with the off hands?

Avoiding a reload is definitely another reason to use multiple weapons, for sure, though our playtest group rarely had fights that lasted so long that even a lower capacity weapon would need more than a single reload. Still, I can imagine situations where you might want to avoid reloading but use a lot of ammo, especially if you're using a bullet-hungry attack like autofire.

I see a lot of people making comparisons to the real-world issues involved in independently targeting multiple weapons simultaneously, which strikes me as rather odd. By the time you've hit 6th level - at the very latest - you've already stepped beyond what ordinary people can do. That's the case in Pathfinder, and I'm quite confident it will be the case in Starfinder as well.

If your PCs can still survive falls from high cliffs and can fight on without penalties after taking numerous grievous injuries, then applying real-world standards to things like targeting multiple weapons in combat just seems arbitrary. Starfinder has given us every indication that, like Pathfinder, it's not holding itself to the real world in what it wants to emulate; at best it's approximating action movies, not reality.

"It's too difficult in the real world, so it's too difficult for characters in the game" really isn't a standard that Starfinder looks like it's going to be adhering to, in other words. As such, it's not a good explanation for why characters can't do something.

Can you elaborate on the autofire (a word my phone autocorrected to autocorrect. Love technology) vs a regular pistol? And if you use half a battery firing a weapon, how difficult is that to recharge? Or am I stuck with a half dead battery or 2.

Avoiding a reload is definitely another reason to use multiple weapons, for sure, though our playtest group rarely had fights that lasted so long that even a lower capacity weapon would need more than a single reload. Still, I can imagine situations where you might want to avoid reloading but use a lot of ammo, especially if you're using a bullet-hungry attack like autofire.

Now this makes me wonder about the prices of weapons and if it is easier to quick draw a new already loaded weapon than to reload one already in hand.

So many questions... :-)

Mark Seifter wrote:

Avoiding a reload is definitely another reason to use multiple weapons, for sure, though our playtest group rarely had fights that lasted so long that even a lower capacity weapon would need more than a single reload. Still, I can imagine situations where you might want to avoid reloading but use a lot of ammo, especially if you're using a bullet-hungry attack like autofire.

Now this makes me wonder about the prices of weapons and if it is easier to quick draw a new already loaded weapon than to reload one already in hand.

So many questions... :-)

That depends, is the weapon a Tediore model?

Now I'm really curious how damage actually scales with the dead-basic weapon attack.
PF had base damage as [weapon]+[ability mod]+[other fiddly bonuses] multiplied by number of attacks.

Wonder how Starfinder plays out, but I'd really like to move and enjoy RELIABLY scaled weapon damage in combat...

I see a lot of people making comparisons to the real-world issues involved in independently targeting multiple weapons simultaneously, which strikes me as rather odd. By the time you've hit 6th level - at the very latest - you've already stepped beyond what ordinary people can do. That's the case in Pathfinder, and I'm quite confident it will be the case in Starfinder as well.

If your PCs can still survive falls from high cliffs and can fight on without penalties after taking numerous grievous injuries, then applying real-world standards to things like targeting multiple weapons in combat just seems arbitrary. Starfinder has given us every indication that, like Pathfinder, it's not holding itself to the real world in what it wants to emulate; at best it's approximating action movies, not reality.

"It's too difficult in the real world, so it's too difficult for characters in the game" really isn't a standard that Starfinder looks like it's going to be adhering to, in other words. As such, it's not a good explanation for why characters can't do something.

If we aren't even going to bother with the pretense of simulation -- which I would personally be fine with, but doesn't mesh with most variants of d20, Pathfinder included -- then why would having four arms matter, either? Surely higher level characters wouldn't be hampered by having "only" two arms?

Vital strike will probably be a lot better... but have to work differently now that i think about it.

I see a lot of people making comparisons to the real-world issues involved in independently targeting multiple weapons simultaneously, which strikes me as rather odd. By the time you've hit 6th level - at the very latest - you've already stepped beyond what ordinary people can do. That's the case in Pathfinder, and I'm quite confident it will be the case in Starfinder as well.

If your PCs can still survive falls from high cliffs and can fight on without penalties after taking numerous grievous injuries, then applying real-world standards to things like targeting multiple weapons in combat just seems arbitrary. Starfinder has given us every indication that, like Pathfinder, it's not holding itself to the real world in what it wants to emulate; at best it's approximating action movies, not reality.

"It's too difficult in the real world, so it's too difficult for characters in the game" really isn't a standard that Starfinder looks like it's going to be adhering to, in other words. As such, it's not a good explanation for why characters can't do something.

Well, I'm pretty sure the main reason is actually 'giving one race the ability to innately get twice as many attacks as other races is too powerful', and if they agreed with you that all multi-limbed races should be showering down rains of death, kasatha wouldn't be a core race and other multi-armed or multi-tentacled or multi-whatevered wouldn't be a race people could play. And that sounds terrible. I don't see a problem with people choosing to justify it in that way either...

I still like my idea that ever additional arm you use gives another -4. I am interested in seeing how all the starfinder (almost said craft) rules play out however. I think this is probably a clever way to deal with races with multiple arms. I'm ok with it cause I've had a tri-kreen in my game in 3.5 and it was horrible.

Sadly that makes no sense at all. If you were a race that had four arms you would be likely to learn how to use all four arms to shoot four guns.

If this were true then every two armed soldier would know how to fire a pistol both right handed and left handed. Use a rifle or shotgun (cartridge ejection nonewithstanding) in the same manner as well.

Yeah generally unless you also have some way of dividing your focus like a second brain its hard to multitask like that.

I remember hearing once that it would be really unlikely to meet intelligent alien life with large numbers of limbs because so much of their brain would be devoted to coordinating the limbs.

Yeah generally unless you also have some way of dividing your focus like a second brain its hard to multitask like that.

I remember hearing once that it would be really unlikely to meet intelligent alien life with large numbers of limbs because so much of their brain would be devoted to coordinating the limbs.

Counter point: Octopus. I would be truly terriffied of septa-wielding cyber octopus in power armor.

Hmm fair point they have that bizarre octopus intelligence thing. Counter Counter point: They might be chutulian monstrosities that we are just used to and they are violating the rules of reality.

Hello, Githiaskio friends.

Hmm fair point they have that bizarre octopus intelligence thing. Counter Counter point: They might be chutulian monstrosities that we are just used to and they are violating the rules of reality.

I will concede to the validity of your statement. i would also like to amend my previous hypothetical to include the cyber-cephalopod to be on a segway of somekind to supplement its mobility due to seven of eight limbs dedicated to combat purposes.

Hmm fair point they have that bizarre octopus intelligence thing. Counter Counter point: They might be chutulian monstrosities that we are just used to and they are violating the rules of reality.

I think that would just make them even more terrifying.

If we aren't even going to bother with the pretense of simulation -- which I would personally be fine with, but doesn't mesh with most variants of d20, Pathfinder included -- then why would having four arms matter, either? Surely higher level characters wouldn't be hampered by having "only" two arms?

I think that there is a pretense of simulation; it's just that it's simulating action-movie logic, rather than real-world logic (which strikes me as meshing very much with most d20 variants). Characters in action movies typically aren't hampered in terms of independently targeting multiple weapons simultaneously, and that's typically the case for d20 characters (there might be a small penalty and/or a feat requirement, but that's usually it). Introducing that kind of restriction for characters that happen to have four arms, and justifying it as "hey, look how hard it is in real life" is a dissonant element.

Well, I'm pretty sure the main reason is actually 'giving one race the ability to innately get twice as many attacks as other races is too powerful', and if they agreed with you that all multi-limbed races should be showering down rains of death, kasatha wouldn't be a core race and other multi-armed or multi-tentacled or multi-whatevered wouldn't be a race people could play. And that sounds terrible. I don't see a problem with people choosing to justify it in that way either...

Oh, there's no doubt that game-ism - in terms of wanting to preserve game balance - is the real reason for the limitation. I'm just saying that trying to tie that back into the in-character aspects of the setting via citing real-world logic seems like a poor explanation, as it's holding the game to a standard that's not really being used elsewhere.

Luthorne wrote:

Well, I'm pretty sure the main reason is actually 'giving one race the ability to innately get twice as many attacks as other races is too powerful', and if they agreed with you that all multi-limbed races should be showering down rains of death, kasatha wouldn't be a core race and other multi-armed or multi-tentacled or multi-whatevered wouldn't be a race people could play. And that sounds terrible. I don't see a problem with people choosing to justify it in that way either...

Oh, there's no doubt that game-ism - in terms of wanting to preserve game balance - is the real reason for the limitation. I'm just saying that trying to tie that back into the in-character aspects of the setting via citing real-world logic seems like a poor explanation, as it's holding the game to a standard that's not really being used elsewhere.

I don't think anyone's trying to say that real life is the only metric, though. After all, we don't actually have four-armed sapients on our planet to provide any such metric with. Actually, I don't recall seeing any action-movies with four-armed protagonists, so I'm not really sure where the comparison comes from. You just said you didn't think that it made any sense to not be able to fire all your weapons at once regardless of how many limbs you made, and other people said it made perfect sense to them. I don't think that's really a problem.

And, honestly, even in most action flicks I've seen where someone dual-wields guns, they usually don't fire both simultaneously, they just fire one, then the other, then the other, then the other, though admittedly rapidly...which is probably simply a trick to underscore how many bullets are being fired. Remember also that rounds are an abstraction and not meant to be a perfect representation of how quickly or slowly things are happening...while there's a nice 'your turn' 'my turn' 'their turn' thing out of game, in the game it's mostly happening almost all at once, and it's not like you're pausing between turns in-universe, even if it feels like it sometime (well, unless you delay or ready on your turn). So it probably is them blazing away with all guns even if it's only two on one turn and two on the next turn, with the character's motion between turns being the wild dodging and ducking behind cover and so on and so forth.

I also seem to remember the majority of action heroes focusing on one enemy per shot in general, swapping their attention unless they're going full machine gun or minigun and just mowing down the enemies without really aiming beyond 'that general direction', but I'll admit that's just an impression...

I don't think anyone's trying to say that real life is the only metric, though.

I disagree. I saw a lot of posts talking about how hard that is to "actually" do, citing why the military doesn't give people two guns at once, etc. and that's why it makes sense that a four-armed race couldn't use four guns at once.

After all, we don't actually have four-armed sapients on our planet to provide any such metric with.

Hence the discrepancy that I'm pointing out. If we're talking about a race of four-armed aliens in the first place, that should be a clue that real-world issues of targeting aren't in play to begin with.

Actually, I don't recall seeing any action-movies with four-armed protagonists, so I'm not really sure where the comparison comes from.

The comparison is action movie logic vs. real world logic. You don't need to go much more specific than that (e.g. in terms of trying to find movies with four-armed aliens to cite as precedent). I'm not sure how many action movies have their protagonists fall off a two hundred foot cliff into molten lava and then swim out and keep fighting, all without magic or special tech or being a deity, but I'm comfortable using "action movie logic" as a shorthand for that sort of thing being possible under the game rules.

You just said you didn't think that it made any sense to not be able to fire all your weapons at once regardless of how many limbs you made, and other people said it made perfect sense to them. I don't think that's really a problem.

No, what I said was that I don't think it makes any sense to cite the real world as a precedent for why something can't be done, when so much of the game is quite clearly not concerned about that.

Actually, I don't recall seeing any action-movies with four-armed protagonists, so I'm not really sure where the comparison comes from.

While they aren't the protagonists, John Carter's allies the Green Martians are a four armed race and feature quite prominently in the 2012 movie.

General Grievous, the four armed cybernetic antagonist from Star Wars.

While the sample size is extremely tiny, there are some action/sci fi movies that have four armed persons :)

And, honestly, even in most action flicks I've seen where someone dual-wields guns, they usually don't fire both simultaneously, they just fire one, then the other, then the other, then the other, though admittedly rapidly...which is probably simply a trick to underscore how many bullets are being fired. Remember also that rounds are an abstraction and not meant to be a perfect representation of how quickly or slowly things are happening...while there's a nice 'your turn' 'my turn' 'their turn' thing out of game, in the game it's mostly happening almost all at once, and it's not like you're...

Or, if they're really going "Both Guns Blazing", they're firing both at the same target - probably while sliding across the floor or something.

Luthorne wrote:

And, honestly, even in most action flicks I've seen where someone dual-wields guns, they usually don't fire both simultaneously, they just fire one, then the other, then the other, then the other, though admittedly rapidly...which is probably simply a trick to underscore how many bullets are being fired. Remember also that rounds are an abstraction and not meant to be a perfect representation of how quickly or slowly things are happening...while there's a nice 'your turn' 'my turn' 'their turn' thing out of game, in the game it's mostly happening almost all at once, and it's not like you're...

Or, if they're really going "Both Guns Blazing", they're firing both at the same target - probably while sliding across the floor or something.

That too. There's nothing that says that you need to be targeting different individuals when you're fighting with multiple weapons. Just fire all four guns at the same guy!

Luthorne wrote:

Actually, I don't recall seeing any action-movies with four-armed protagonists, so I'm not really sure where the comparison comes from.

While they aren't the protagonists, John Carter's allies the Green Martians are a four armed race and feature quite prominently in the 2012 movie.

General Grievous, the four armed cybernetic antagonist from Star Wars.

While the sample size is extremely tiny, there are some action/sci fi movies that have four armed persons :)

Indeed, I'm aware, which is why I specified the protagonist!

Luthorne wrote:

Actually, I don't recall seeing any action-movies with four-armed protagonists, so I'm not really sure where the comparison comes from.

While they aren't the protagonists, John Carter's allies the Green Martians are a four armed race and feature quite prominently in the 2012 movie.

General Grievous, the four armed cybernetic antagonist from Star Wars.

While the sample size is extremely tiny, there are some action/sci fi movies that have four armed persons :)

I just remembered: Goro, from the Mortal Kombat film (1995).