Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Dwarf

Diego Rossi's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 9,617 posts (10,099 including aliases). 1 review. 1 list. No wishlists. 7 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 9,617 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

"Wielding" is one of those wonderful terms used in several different ways in the rules. There isn't an official definition of it. When you speak of weapons SKR opinion and the defending weapon FAQ say that it mean actively use. Other abilities and writers use it for held in hand/have it ready for use.
As Calth say, you can wield several different weapons and you can possibly use all of them if you have enough attacks or for AoO if you have combat reflex and enough dexterity.

Comparing:
"You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the secondary weapon."
to
"Members of this race possess three arms. A member of this race can wield multiple weapons, but only one hand is its primary hand, and all others are off hands."

The missing text allowing you to make extra attacks can mean:
1) that the writer was taking that for granted and wanted to keep the word count down;
2) that the writer didn't wanted to give extra attacks with that ability, but only the ability to held multiple different weapons in the different hands.
That can be a interesting ability, as an example, for a creature using a reach weapon in 2 hands and 2 different non reach weapons in the second set of hands.

Without Dev input we can guess what is the intent, but the multiple uses of wield in the rules don't give us a definitive answer.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Scythia wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:

However, it will count as part of your wealth and I'll be "editing" upcoming treasure hoards and other loot to remove wizard items until I'm sure the rest of the group has caught up with your wealth AND you're about midway 4th level where it makes sense for you to have that much wealth.

That could work in a group where found magic items are simply handed out at those that can use them (but probably the wizard would say something like "I haven't received anything from the loot, so I get first dibs for the defection ring or resist cloak", maintaining the unbalance), it wouldn't work so well in a group where you get shares based on the loot value.

I know it's a typo, and I'm not trying to ridicule, but "Defection Ring" sounds like an awesome cursed item. Maybe it uses a Dominate effect to cause the wearer to change sides in a conflict? Or would it be better if it triggered a Veil effect, causing the wearer to see their party as the enemies, and the enemies as their party?

Early morning posting + thrusting the spell checker too much.

But awesome!

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ryan Freire wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:

I'd list move 20 as a bit bigger issue for small fighters than the 2-3 damage per hit they lose for small size and str penalty.

Why does nobody remember that halflings have a trait to boost it back to 30?
Exactly how specific do we have to get then? Its like wondering why int penalty races don't have options to make them better wizards.

The tieflings have an option to make them better sorcerer. I think there is something for intelligence for some race.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DM_Blake wrote:

However, it will count as part of your wealth and I'll be "editing" upcoming treasure hoards and other loot to remove wizard items until I'm sure the rest of the group has caught up with your wealth AND you're about midway 4th level where it makes sense for you to have that much wealth.

That could work in a group where found magic items are simply handed out at those that can use them (but probably the wizard would say something like "I haven't received anything from the loot, so I get first dibs for the defection ring or resist cloak", maintaining the unbalance), it wouldn't work so well in a group where you get shares based on the loot value.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Hugo Rune wrote:

Freedom of Movement - as discussed in the thread linked by Matthew.

My favourite FoM quirk is that if followed through consistently, the same example to allow you to move unhindered through water should also stop you from floating on water. So you should sink and take falling damage when you hit the sea floor. Taking that further, the FoM effect should also negate air resistance and thus the 20d6 limit from falling.
PS: I don't apply that logic in the game

That was how it worked in AD&D 1 and 2 if you had negative buoyancy.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
*Khan* wrote:
Or give the other players a similar boost...

Or the enemies. As the players meet them only once, give the BEEG a bonus of 4,000 gp in one shot items that he/it use before the encounter.

The other players will explain to the wizard how bad is his idea.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
dragonhunterq wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

RAW, I would say no.

I thought the same, but I cannot find any rule to make it RAW.

Just conflicting inferences.

Yes, probably it isn't even RAI. Simply useless most of the time.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Meager Rolmug wrote:


...
Yes it helps to think of produce flame as a splash weapon, but that IS NOT the first thing the vast majority of people unfamiliar with a spell are going to compare it to, in order to understand how it works. They are(like me) going to compare it to other spells they have experience with. And confusion is all but unavoidable, since for many that will mean touch spells. Saying it shouldn't be confusing...is basically saying we are all idiots, i reject that statement(because it IS confusing at first) and resent it.

I you compare it to another spell, you should compare it to this:

PRD wrote:


Flame Blade
School evocation [fire]; Level druid 2
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, DF
Range 0 ft.
Effect sword-like beam
Duration 1 min./level (D)
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance yes

A 3-foot-long, blazing beam of red-hot fire springs forth from your hand. You wield this blade-like beam as if it were a scimitar. Attacks with the flame blade are melee touch attacks. The blade deals 1d8 points of fire damage + 1 point per two caster levels (maximum +10). Since the blade is immaterial, your Strength modifier does not apply to the damage. A flame blade can ignite combustible materials such as parchment, straw, dry sticks, and cloth.

You aren't an idiot, you are uninformed, and that is curable asking information (what you did) and processing them. The problem is that now you are resentful for the help received.

When you look a spell stat block you should look the whole statblock, if you only read part of it and assume what is in the other parts you will incur in several errors.

Consider touch spell and armed touch attacks.

PRD wrote:
Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. The act of casting a spell, however, does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack as long as the spell deals damage. Your opponent's AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally.

When I first came to these boards I participated in a a long discussion as I was convinced there was something like a "offensive touch spell" and that only those spells counted as armed attacks.

After a while the posts of the people explaining how it work clarified to me that any touch spell count as an armed attack. Even if you are casting (for whatever reason) invisibility on your opponent.
And I had already played the 3rd edition of D&D for 10 years at that point.

Sometime we use mental shortcuts and we miss crucial information.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Well, I think with the static bonuses from Startoss thrown weapons might actually do more damage than bows for Fighters now. Would need somebody who likes math to verify that, though.

Considering it's in addition to str and it's a sizeable +6 total, yes it may.

2WF thrown actually compares reasonably well in damage potential with archery, but is a huge feat sink. (Startoss+2WF tree is 6 feats total)

The other problem is that Paizo absolutely hates the idea of throwing characters getting magical weapons and won't ever release a magic item similar to amulet of mighty fists for thrown builds.

Blinkback Belt

Require quickdraw, but if you are making a throwing build quickdraw is a must.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

RAW, I would say no.

In a home game? As the GM I would allow him to swap feat if he do it once.

If it become an habit I would ask him if he is using this tactic to get the feat 1 level earlier.

Edit: Raven is right, some class force you into taking a specific feat, so it is possible even if you play strict RAW. But in that instance I would say that the specific rules of the class/archetype supersede the generic rule.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
bbangerter wrote:
Meager Rolmug wrote:


...get iteratives on full rounds attacks...
Just a note on this. If you have a held charge for a touch spell you may also take iteratives with your held charge as a full round attack if you wish. Normally you deliver the spell as part of the free touch attack when you cast it, so it never comes up. But with a spell like chill touch, or an enemy with a high touch AC, there are no rules that stipulate you may only attempt one touch attack per round.

There is one o two spells spells and several monster touch attacks that are limited to 1 touch per round, so it is worth specifing that.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

You are the GM, so you have the rules granted authority to say "No!"

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Samasboy1 wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:


In a permissive system you need to find evidence for your interpretation as it is the on that give and extended interpretation of the rule and examples that contradict it show that it is not something automatic.

Not arguing one way or another on the topic, but I don't think this means what you think it means....

Permissive means "allowing or characterized by great or excessive freedom of behavior."

Example, in legal matters, permissive counterclaims are all counterclaims not specifically barred by law.

You seem to be using it exactly opposite of its definition.

Quote:


[per-mis-iv]

adjective
1.
habitually or characteristically accepting or tolerant of something, as social behavior or linguistic usage, that others might disapprove or forbid.
2.
granting or denoting permission:
a permissive nod.

It is the second use. I am not the first using it that way about the Pathfinder rules.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kahel Stormbender wrote:
Quote:

In addition to providing illumination, the flames can be hurled

or used to touch enemies. You can strike an opponent with a melee
touch attack, dealing fire damage equal to 1d6 + 1 point per caster level (maximum +5). Alternatively, you can hurl the flames up to 120
feet as a thrown weapon. When doing so, you attack with a ranged
touch attack (with no range penalty) and deal the same damage
as with the melee attack.
No sooner do you hurl the flames than a
new set appears in your hand. Each attack you make reduces the
remaining duration by 1 minute. If an attack reduces the remaining
duration to 0 minutes or less, the spell ends after the attack resolves.
This spell does not function underwater.

I've yet to see a gamemaster rule you can't attack immediately with produce flames. The bolded part is why. While the basic use is to create light (thus range: 0, palm of hand) it is ALSO an offensive spell used to make a ranged or touch attack.

Touch spells like Shocking Grasp have two distinct components that are not directly linked. The spell it's self imbues your hand with the energy. Then you're able to make an attack as a free action to try discharging the energy.

Ray spells work similarly. First you cast the spell. THEN you make the attack roll. This is why you can still provoke an AoO with a ray spell even if you cast defensively. You're stil making a ranged attack.

The only real difference is that with Produce Flames the spell is (technically) an illumination spell that also can be used to attack. Not that anyone uses it for a light source.

EDIT: Edited for clarification and after double checking the ranged touch rules

It is a touch spell that give you a free attack when you cast it? No.

It is a targeted spell that target a different creature? No, so you don't get to resolve an attack that way when you cast it.

It is a spell that produce a ray? No

It is a ranged spell, like Acid arrow, wher eyou get to select a target? No

It is a spell that produce an effect that you can hurl or use for melee attacks. Hurling or making melee attacks aren't part of the spellcasting so you don't get free attacks.

Let's look a different spell:

PRD wrote:


Magic Stone
School transmutation; Level cleric 1, druid 1
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, DF
Range touch
Targets up to three pebbles touched
Duration 30 minutes or until discharged
Saving Throw Will negates (harmless, object); Spell Resistance yes (harmless, object)

You transmute as many as three pebbles, which can be no larger than sling bullets, so that they strike with great force when thrown or slung. If hurled, they have a range increment of 20 feet. If slung, treat them as sling bullets (range increment 50 feet). The spell gives them a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. The user of the stones makes a normal ranged attack. Each stone that hits deals 1d6+1 points of damage (including the spell's enhancement bonus), or 2d6+2 points against undead.

It give you a free attack when cast? If not, what is the difference with produce flame, as both produce something that can be hurled?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
fretgod99 wrote:

Descriptive text > stat blocks when it comes to rules priority. If rules text and charts conflict, the rules text trumps. I've seen developer commentary on it. I'd have to go find it, which might take a bit.

It works the same with stat blocks. We're explicitly told that D'ziriak's extra two hands cannot be used for combat. Why are you in any way surprised and using this as evidence when they only have two available attacks listed in their stat block?

I didn't add that we know Xills can attack with four weapons. I'm countering your argument which is basically, "Xills have four arms, so why doesn't their stat block list four weapon attacks". That their stat blocks don't include four attacks is irrelevant to whether they can make for attacks. With Xills in particular we know it is particularly relevant because they have a specific ability which allows the combination of manufactured and natural attacks without penalty to natural attacks. So legitimately, why would they need to make four weapon attacks in their stat block? They can already combine their claw attacks without a problem (note, this is the explicit rule-breaking being called out in a stat block that others in this thread have referred to). Them not having four weapon attacks statted out is not in any conceivable way evidence that they cannot make four weapon attacks. At best, it is no evidence either way.

The Sahuagin Champion's case should be patent because it has abilities which clearly explain how it works. The claws are specifically called out in the Four-Armed entry because it isn't guaranteed that getting two more arms will give you claws attached to them. However, the Four-Armed entry states that such creatures also get the Multiweapon Mastery special attack, which means they can attack with multiple weapons without taking penalties to their attack rolls. It is specifically calling out "Multiple" weapons. Obviously, two constitutes multiple. However, we already have relevant abilities for two-weapon cases: two-weapon fighting, Superior Two-Weapon Fighting, etc. This is obviously designed to mirror the Multiweapon Fighting case, meaning 3+ weapons. If they wanted to clarify that they didn't take attack penalties when two-weapon fighting and TWF alone, why not give them Superior Two-Weapon Fighting, like the Ettin? Clearly, Multiweapon Fighting is intended to apply to cases with 3+ weapons. They are clearly intended to be allowed to make attacks with 3+ weapons, otherwise there is absolutely no reason to give them an ability called Multiweapon Mastery.

And note, Multiweapon Master does not give extra attacks; much like the TWF feat and the MWF feat, all it does is reduce penalties associated with a creature that can already make said attacks.

So again, this is not explicit, but it is extremely logical (and I'd go so far as to say obvious - hence my use of patent above) how this works.

Regarding the Kasatha, I'm not sure what you're saying I'm taking for granted. Even if you assume that Kasatha's can make four weapon attacks, that doesn't mean that this creature would be statted out showing them - that was my point. So the lack of four weapon attack entries in the stat block is of no moment.

I am surprised when you find a different creature with only 2 weapon attacks listed in their statblock and you say "it has 4 arms, it is in its description, so it get 4 weapon attacks".

With the D'ziriak's you use the description to say that it is an exception an justify the statblock, with the other creatures you use the description to give them more attacks that those described in their statblock.

Essentially: you aren't coherent.

Yes, multiweapon fighting reduces the penalty for all arms wielding weapons.
Yes, some creature can use more than 2 weapons at the same time.
No, it is not automatic that having more arms give you more weapon attacks.

You guys are inferring the last part, but nothing say that.

Without a FAQ or even better an errata you can't change my opinion and I don't think I can change yours, so continuing this discussion is pointless.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Meager Rolmug wrote:

...

I read that also...but it isn't worded in a way that says ONLY spells that have the "range: touch" are touch spells..."Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action." It SEEMS obvious that a spell that can be delivered by touch would follow the same rules...What other rules would they follow??

PRD wrote:

Produce Flame

School evocation [fire]; Level druid 1
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range 0 ft.
Effect flame in your palm

Duration 1 min./level (D)
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance yes

Flames as bright as a torch appear in your open hand. The flames harm neither you nor your equipment.

Vs.

PRD wrote:

Range

Touch: You must touch a creature or object to affect it. A touch spell that deals damage can score a critical hit just as a weapon can. A touch spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a successful critical hit. Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets. You can touch up to 6 willing targets as part of the casting, but all targets of the spell must be touched in the same round that you finish casting the spell. If the spell allows you to touch targets over multiple rounds, touching 6 creatures is a full-round action.

and

PRD wrote:

Effect: Some spells create or summon things rather than affecting things that are already present.

You must designate the location where these things are to appear, either by seeing it or defining it. Range determines how far away an effect can appear, but if the effect is mobile, after it appears it can move regardless of the spell's range.

Produce flame isn't a touch spell, it is a spell that produce an effect. The effect is a flame on the palm of your hand.

You can use that effect to make attacks but that don't make it a touch spell, it make an effect that deliver damage with a touch attack, either ranged or melee.

As it isn't a touch attack you don't get to attack with it in the round in which you cast the spell.
As the flame reappear in your hand as soon as you hurl it you can make iterative attacks with it.
As it can be used for melee attacks it threatens and can be used for attack of opportunity.

It is not much different from wielding a burning torch and using it as a weapon.

Edit:
to better address your objection, you say "but it isn't worded in a way that says ONLY spells that have the "range: touch" are touch spells". Check under what section is the piece of text about touch spells.
It is under Range; Touch.
So if it is under that section, where you get the idea that it refer to something different?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
fretgod99 wrote:

You posted monster stat blocks last page. I responded here, showing why your concerns about those particular monsters were unfounded. Again, these entries are of no concern.

Xill was discussed in my other post, as was the Kasatha (it doesn't have four weapons in the stat block, so why would they have an entry for four attacks? Plus, it's a Monk and Flurry explicitly works like TWF).

Regarding this more specific Sahuagin, there are the equivalent of three manufactured weapon attacks; the creature is two-handing the trident. You can tell by the damage bonus: +8 from 26 STR, +4 for second hand, +1 from magic weapon. Notice the shield is +8, just from STR and both natural attacks are +4 (assumed to be combined with manufactured attacks and thus secondary).

So the attack sequence is two-handing the Trident, Shield bash, Claw, Bite. Equivalently three weapon attacks, then a claw attack with the remaining hand.

It appears you have provided the proof via stat block you were requesting.

PRD wrote:
The average d'ziriak is 7 feet tall and has four arms, two legs, a termite-like abdomen, and a mandibled visage somewhere between that of insect and human. Two of its arms are large and possess sharp claws, while the other two are relatively small and used for fine manipulations, not combat. Strangely for a race native to the realm of shadows, the d'ziriaks have a colorful collection of runic shapes, almost like glowing tattoos, upon their chitinous flesh. These runes help to denote what role in d'ziriak society each of these beings serves.

As already said, I found interesting how you consider descriptive text a relevant rule, a statblock as a not relevant rule.

What make one superior to the other?

You other comments hase similar problems:

fretgod99 wrote:


The xill only has two short swords. Is it your position that they wouldn't be able to attack with all four if they had statted them with four? Perhaps they did it for flavor or balance reasons. Who knows? But its version of Multiweapon Mastery allows it to combine its claws with weapon attacks at no penalty, so why would they need more swords?

A non reply. I agree that we don't know why the xill has only 2 weapon attacks. But you take "we don't know" ad add "so it mean that he can make 4 weapon attacks".

fretgod99 wrote:


I'm not sure what the point is regarding four-armed Sahuagin. Their base is being able to make four claw attacks (with natural attacks usually being superior to manufactured attacks, and the default for monster classes). Plus, giving them extra arms doesn't say anything about claw attacks. They specify how it works with claw attacks because that's nonobvious. How it works with weapon attacks should be patent, particularly since they get multiweapon mastery, as well.

"How it works with weapon attacks should be patent" ..... Why?

Again we don't know, how you get to the conclusion that it is "patent"?

fretgod99 wrote:


Specifically re: the Kasatha, it isn't statted out with full attack combos. Note that it's statted out with two sais, even though the melee line only has it attacking once (and doesn't have the entries for TWF, either). So again, that the stat block doesn't bear out all possible combinations is of no moment to whether or not the default position is that you can attack with all your arms, even if you have more than 2. Also note that a Kasatha has neither MWF or Multiweapon Mastery, so they wouldn't put full attacks in the stat block because making four attacks would be massively suboptimal. They put Flurry stats in the block because the Kasatha in the Bestiary 4 has a level of Monk.

Again taking something that is not defined in any way for granted.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
CBDunkerson wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
I have cited several monsters with multiple arms and less attacks than arms

Unfortunately, that's evidence of nothing.

Unless you would also argue that the many stat blocks showing two armed creatures wielding a single one-handed weapon suggest that fighting with a weapon in each hand is impossible.

Indeed, the fact that there are examples of creatures like Kasatha, Xill, and Sahuagin (4 armed variety) both with and without 3+ weapon attacks, yet no special 'extra attacks' ability on any of them, is just more evidence for 'available attacks = available arms'.

It is circumstantial evidence that more than 4 arms isn't automatically more that i off hand attack.

Nothing more than circumstantial evidence, but it has the same value that citing some monster that get multiple armed attacks as supposed "proof" that multiple arms automatically mean multiple off hand armed attacks.

In a permissive system you need to find evidence for your interpretation as it is the on that give and extended interpretation of the rule and examples that contradict it show that it is not something automatic.

BTW, you are using a logical fallacy in your example.
In Pathfinder, a permissive system, there is a specific rule that allow two weapon fighting. So your attempt at disproving my position is based on a false equivalency.

Plus:

D20PFSRD wrote:


Xill Matriarch CR 9

...

OFFENSE

Speed 40 ft.
Melee mwk short sword +19/+14/+9 (1d6+5/19–20), mwk short sword +19/+14 (1d6+5/19–20), claw +18 (1d4+5 plus grab), bite +13 (1d3+2 plus paralysis) or 4 claws +18 (1d4+5 plus grab), bite +18 (1d3+5 plus paralysis)
Ranged mwk composite longbow +18/+13/+8 (1d8+5/×3), mwk composite longbow +18/+13 (1d8+5/×3)

2 melee weapons or 2 ranged weapons

D20PFSRD wrote:


Kasatha CR 1/2

..

OFFENSE

Speed 30 ft.
Melee sai +3 (1d4+1) or unarmed strike +3 (1d6+1) or flurry of blows +2/+2 (1d6+1)
Special Attacks flurry of blows, stunning fist (1/day, DC 13)

1 melee weapon. The ranger archetype get 2 ranged weapons.

PRD wrote:


Sahuagin Champion CR 10

Four-armed sahuagin barbarian 7

...

Offense

Speed 40 ft., swim 60 ft.

Melee +1 trident +18/+13 (1d8+13), claw +15 (1d4+4), mwk spiked heavy steel shield +18 (1d6+8), bite +15 (1d4+4)

2 weapon attacks, trident and shield, 1 claw, 1 bite.

So exactly where are your examples? Can you link them?

What we get from those example is that several creatures can use 2 two handed weapons it they get more than 4 arms. Not 3 off hand attacks.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
fretgod99 wrote:
My position is that the language used explicitly in the rules (in places like the MWF feat) implies clear intent by the developers that if you have more than the standard 2 arms presumed for PC races, you are allowed to make additional attacks. MWF explicitly calls out multiple off-hand attacks. That only makes sense if a person meeting the prerequisites for that feat has the ability to utilize said attacks. This has nothing to do with "Well, it doesn't say you can't...". The has everything to do with "Even though they don't explicitly say you can, the language used doesn't really make much sense unless you can." The gulf between those two positions is vast.

The big difference in our positions is that you assume that getting more arms grant more weapon attacks, while I assume that getting more weapon attacks in the creature statblock is needed to get more weapon attacks.

I have cited several monsters with multiple arms and less attacks than arms, the reply (no by you, I speaking of several replies) was "but the monster description say that he don't use its extra arms to attack".
So the descriptive text is used as an hard rule.
But at the same time a statblock that say that x creature don't get as many attacks as arms isn't an hard rule.
I find difficult to reconcile those two positions when they are presented by people supporting the same position.

I would prefer a more clear rule now that it is possible to get player characters with more than two arms? Yes.

But until we get it I think that the more conservative hypothesis is the one we should follow. Not the more lenient.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
fretgod99 wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Inference wrote:
a conclusion or opinion that is formed because of known facts or evidence
Calling drawing an inference "making something up" is as baffling as it is woefully inaccurate. Drawing inferences is a necessary component of logical analysis.
When you speak of a rule set where the rules say what is allowed, inferring that if rule A allow A1 it allow B1 too is "making something up".

Only if there is no logical basis for making the connection between A1 and B1. That's not the case here, so again, I'm not making anything up.

This is not dissimilar to the Sneak Attack from Range debate that was only just recently finally settled. The only reason there was a debate was because it required some level of inference (not much, but some) to demonstrate that flanking does in fact require the attack to be a melee attack. But because it wasn't absolutely explicitly stated (as you are requiring here), there was a huge debate that spanned years and multiple threads.

We finally got PDT input that unequivocally said drawing that inference was correct: flanking requires melee.

Similarly, the connection between A1 and B1, to use your terms, is not specious. There is a foundation for it. Ergo, it is not "made up".

Actually it is exactly the same kind of error.

"The rules don't allow X but don't explicitly disallow it, so it is allowed." in a permissive rule set is always very doubtful.

Your reasoning. "the rules don't say that you require a explicit ability to make more than 1 off hand attack if you have more than 2 arms, so it is allowed."
Flanking from range: "the rules don't explicitly say that you need to be in meele range to flank, so it is allowed."

And honestly, how someone can get that idea:

PRD wrote:


Flanking

When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Chess Pwn wrote:

Ability to acquire a new familiar, compatible alignment, sufficiently high level (see below)

Arcane Spellcaster Level

It requires Arcane Spellcaster Level for the familiars. Not wizard levels, not effective wizard levels.

Arcane spellcaster levels include Wizard levels. Unless you find a way to make a wizard casting divine spells.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
FAQ wrote:

Cleric domains, sorcerer bloodlines, wizard schools, and certain other class features give spell-like abilities that aren't based on spells. What's the effective spell level for these abilities?

The effective spell level for these spell-like abilities is equal to the highest-level spell that a character of that class could normally cast at the level the ability is gained.

For example, a 1st-level elemental bloodline sorcerer has elemental ray as a spell-like ability. Because a sorcerer 1's highest-level spell available is 1st, that spell-like ability counts as a 1st-level spell. A 9th-level elemental bloodline sorcerer has elemental blast as a spell-like ability. Because a sorcerer 9's highest-level spell available is 4th, that spell-like ability counts as a 4th-level spell.

So Touch of Madness count as a 1st level spell.

As it is a touch spell you can cast it, move and then deliver the touch.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
PRD wrote:


Spell Study (Su): At 2nd level, the sage's understanding of the spells of bards, clerics, and druids is so great that he can use his own magic in an inefficient, roundabout way to duplicate those classes' spells. Once per day, a spell sage can spontaneously cast any spell on the bard, cleric, or druid spell list as if it were a wizard spell he knew and had prepared. The casting time for this spell is 1 full round per spell level of the desired spell (using the lowest spell level if the spell is on more than one of the spell lists indicated above) and requires expending two prepared spells of that spell level or higher; if the spell's casting time is normally 1 full round or longer, this time is added to the spell sage's casting time. For example, if a spell sage wants to use spell study to cast cure light wounds (cleric spell level 1st), he must spend 2 full rounds casting and expend two prepared wizard spells of 1st level or higher.

You already spend 1 full round/level, so avoiding the metamagic added cost of 1 full round isn't much of an issue. Especially as it is possible to argue that the original casting time is what matter, not the time of the spell sage ability, so you would transform a 1 standard action spell into a 1 round action spell, then make it a 1 full round/level spell, ending without any increase in casting time for the metamagic.

That said, I don't know if a spell sage can add a metamagic to a spell cast with spell study, so being able to do that thanks to preferred spell can help.

PRD wrote:

Preferred Spell

Benefit: Choose one spell which you have the ability to cast ...

Actually, you don't have the ability to cast a specific bards, clerics, or druids spell, you have the ability to duplicate it using a archetype ability.

I don't think it qualifies for Preferred spell.

When you take preferred spell it target a spell you can cast, but at that time you can't cast the specific bards, clerics, or druids spell you want to target, as it require the activation of a specific ability and the ability to cast last only for the casting time of that spell.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

This reply from SKR made when he still was a developer and the one in charge of replying to questions made in the forum is enough?

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Sep 24, 2011, 02:43 am
Oliver McShade and the Core Ruleook wrote:
"It is possible for more than one character to cooperate in the creation of an item, with each participant providing one or more of the prerequisites. In some cases, cooperation may even be necessary."
A wizard and a cleric cooperating to craft a scroll of cure light wounds are, between the two of them, meeting all of the prerequisites for the item's creation. Thus, the "you cannot create this if you don't meet all the prerequisites" rule on page 549 does not apply, because "you" in the case of cooperative crafting is "the people involved in crafting the item."

It is here.

And:

PRD - Ultimate Campaign wrote:

Cooperative Crafting

If you need another character to supply one of an item's requirements (such as if you're a wizard creating an item with a divine spell), both you and the other character must be present for the entire duration of the crafting process. If the GM is using the downtime system, both you and the other character must use downtime at the same time for this purpose. Only you make the skill check to complete the item—or, if there is a chance of creating a cursed item, the GM makes the check in secret.

If the second character is providing a spell effect, that character's spell is expended for the day, just as if you were using one of your own spells for a requirement. If the second character is a hired NPC, you must pay for the NPC's spellcasting service for each day of the item creation.

FAQ wrote:

Crafting and Bypassing Requirements: What crafting requirements can you bypass by adding +5 to the DC of your Spellcraft check?

As presented on page 549 of the Core Rulebook, there are no limitations other than (1) you have to have the item creation feat, and (2) you cannot create potions, spell-trigger, or spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites. So racial requirements, specific spell requirements, math requirements (such as "caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus"), and so on, are all subject to the +5 DC rule.

If you need to find an outside source for the requirements you lack, this FAQ has no reason to exist.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Derek Dalton wrote:
Banning Furious or Bane which is what Furious is based of off ...

Why you think that furious is based on Bane? There is no relation between the two abilities.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DM_Blake wrote:

Yep. At that moment, it's +3, so it does everything a +3 weapon should do.

Here's a pro-tip for GMs. Ban the Furious enhancement. Most people will never ever want it. Fighters, rangers, paladins, etc. The only people who want it are people who basically rage ALL DAY LONG. Well, at least long enough each battle to win every fight. Many barbarians have rage cycling or at least enough rounds of rage to handle a half dozen fights every day, raging the whole time. If a PC is one of those guys, then this is almost literally the benefit of getting +2 for the price of +1. Worse, eventually they'll have a +7 weapon they use all day for the price of a +6 - but nobody else can get a +7 weapon, ever.

It's pretty hard to fix. Make it count as +2 instead of +1 and it becomes a trap option. Make it a fixed price and it will be broken at any price.

It's simpler to just ban it.

(or use it on NPC barbarians when your PCs don't HAVE a barbarian - or other rager - to make the NPC stronger than he should be without having a more expensive item)

An inquisitor can get the same effect, getting bane against the current type of enemies for most of his fights. And a high level magus with the bane arcana can do the same.

The main difference is that the magus get its ability at level 15 spending an arcana, the inquisitor get it a low level and can spend a feat to increase the number of rounds, the barbarian get it as a +1 weapon ability that he can activate at level 1.

The barbarian, AFAIK, is the only one that can get a +9 (furious+bane) against some opponent.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
CBDunkerson wrote:
James Risner wrote:

Bestiary entries have tons of errors. Every one. Even the Bestiary I after what? 5 printings?

They all have errors, these errors generally don't get fixed, and these errors often violate the rules.

Maybe so, but when numerous Bestiary and other stat block entries are consistent on various points (e.g. extra arms equals extra off-hand attacks, light weapons reduce MWF penalties by two, at least one two-handed weapon can be used with MWF) they can certainly be taken as indicative of general understanding and intent.

Indeed, I described the dual bow-wielding Xill Matriarch as a 'corner case' precisely because it is one of only two examples I know of which work that way (Kasatha Bow Nomad being the other). Thus, while suggestive, it might still be an exception or error.

Kazaan wrote:
Number of arms doesn't affect how many off-hand attacks you have unless it explicitly says so.
...and suddenly I'm seeing the black knight from Monty Python, "I'll bite your kneecaps off!"

I already pointed out that the Bow nomad archetype don't use multi weapon fighting.

It use Two weapon fighting.
People of the stars wrote:


Twin Bows (Ex): At 1st level, a bow nomad can simultaneously wield a combination of two of any of the following ranged weapons: shortbow, longbow, and their composite versions. When a bow nomad makes a full attack with two bows, twoweapon
penalties
apply and can be offset with Two-Weapon Fighting feats. Since bows aren’t light weapons, a bow nomad with Two-Weapon Fighting takes a –4 penalty on attacks with each of her bows. Extra attacks from other sources, such as those granted by Manyshot or Rapid Shot, can be applied to only one of the wielded bows per round. This ability replaces wild empathy.

To repeat it again: several instances of two weapon fighting, zero of multi weapon fighting in that thext.

Xill matriarch:

Use 2 shortsword and 2 claws or two bows.
She has this ability:

D20PFSRD wrote:


Matriarch Weapon Mastery (Ex)

A xill matriarch never takes penalties on attack rolls when fighting with multiple weapons, adds her full Strength modifier on damage rolls with off-hand attacks, and treats her claws as primary attacks even when also wielding weapons. She is considered to have the Two-Weapon Fighting and Double Slice feats for the purpose of fulfilling prerequisites.

That is why she can take Improved two weapon fighting. A special ability described in her statblock.

So you previous post is simply wrong:

CBDunkerson wrote:

Found another corner case. The Xill Matriarch from Occult Bestiary can use its four arms to attack with two bows at the same time. It also has ITWF to get an iterative attack with the second bow.

Thus, it seems to exactly match the Kasatha Bow Nomad archetype without possessing a specific ability to grant that capability. Since bows don't get 1.5x strength bonus damage this doesn't really play in to the question of how/if wielding multiple two-handed melee weapons works. That and how combinations of MWF and ITWF/GTWF work would seem to be the biggest questions on this topic - in that they are least (or not at all) explored by existing examples.

She has a special ability that allow her to get the iterative with bows. And she hasn't multi weapon fighting at all.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
James Risner wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Found another corner case. The Xill Matriarch from Occult Bestiary

Bestiary entries have tons of errors. Every one. Even the Bestiary I after what? 5 printings?

They all have errors, these errors generally don't get fixed, and these errors often violate the rules.

While what you say is true, it is a difficult to use that as a basis for an argument. What is the error? The example that support my position or the example that support the opposite position?

Choosing one over the other is a question of interpretation of the rules, so it is subjective.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

a) Fast Healing (Su): An eidolon's body gains the ability to heal wounds very quickly, giving it fast healing 1.

b) The synthesist gains the eidolon's hit points as temporary hit points. When these hit points reach 0, the eidolon is killed and sent back to its home plane.

Fast healing work on the eidolon. Temporary hit points aren't recovered with fast healing, so 4.

c) Share Healing (Teamwork)
Your link with your companion creature allows you to share with it any healing magic that's cast upon you.

Prerequisite: Ability to acquire an animal companion, an eidolon, a familiar, or a special mount.

Benefit: When you and your companion creature have this feat, your companion creature is adjacent to you or sharing your square, and you receive the benefit of a healing spell (whether from yourself or another source), you can divide the hit points healed evenly between yourself and your companion creature.

Do nothing if the one healed is your companion.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
CBDunkerson wrote:
Calth wrote:
You still need an actual rule. ... You need actual words on a page that actually say gaining an arm gives you an attack.

I've already quoted two rules which say exactly that... the MWF feat and the Multi-Armed race trait. You are interpreting those rules to NOT mean you can attack with weapons held in your arms, but I don't think those interpretations are logical... not from the actual wording, and certainly not in the face of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Malag, actually a two armed PC with the TWF feats can get just as many attacks as a four armed PC with MWF (e.g. both max out at 7 attacks with BAB 16+). Some people believe that you can combine MWF with ITWF and GTWF to get tons of attacks, but there is very little evidence supporting that view (e.g. not a single creature in any Bestiary, Module, AP, etc published by Paizo which actually works that way).

You really think that 3 off hand attacks at full BAB -2 are equivalent to 3 off hand attacks at full BAB -2/-7/-12?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
fretgod99 wrote:
Inference wrote:
a conclusion or opinion that is formed because of known facts or evidence
Calling drawing an inference "making something up" is as baffling as it is woefully inaccurate. Drawing inferences is a necessary component of logical analysis.

When you speak of a rule set where the rules say what is allowed, inferring that if rule A allow A1 it allow B1 too is "making something up".

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Concentration is a standard action so you can take move swift, immediate and free actions. Not standard or full round actions.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
CBDunkerson wrote:
Calth wrote:
Doesn't matter, a bestiary statblock is not a sufficient rules argument. It doesn't invalidate my argument that PCs only get 2 hands of effort. You need to provide a rule that PCs, not bestiary creatures, get attacks from having arms. But one doesn't exist, so you cant.

Actually, two exist. The aforementioned 'Normal' state in the MWF feat which you insist on reading as unrelated to how all 3+ weapon bestiary entries work and;

"Multi-Armed (4 RP): Prerequisites: None; Benefit: Members of this race possess three arms. A member of this race can wield multiple weapons, but only one hand is its primary hand, and all others are off hands. It can also use its hands for other purposes that require free hands. Special: This trait can be taken up to twice. When it is taken a second time, the race gains a fourth arm."
ARG, pg 239

Not surprisingly, the Kasatha entry in the ARG (pg 233) has the 8 RP / four arm version of this trait. Specific rule that PCs get attacks from having multiple arms. Identical to the MWF rule you are mis-interpreting. Identical to all 3+ weapon bestiary entries. Identical to TWF rules.

Do you realize that you are undercutting your argument, not supporting it?

You have just pointed out that the Kasatha pay a price to get the use of multiple arms. But the whole argument in the thread is that multiple arms automatically grant multiple attacks.

That beside the simple fact that it still don't say that they get extra weapon attacks.

And another thing, where is the often cited Multi-Armed trait?

PRD wrote:


Other Racial Traits
This category covers various traits that other categories do not, which can augment your race in a number of different ways.
Multi-Armed (4 RP):

And where are the traits that grant additional attacks?

PRD wrote:


Offense Racial Traits

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Derek Dalton wrote:

The Kasatha Rogue has an editing error. Three attacks when it has four arms. Look at other posts about this subject. The Kasatha uses all four of it's arms. Hell it has a Ranger Archtype that uses two Bows and is suggested taking TWF and the rest of those feats to reduce penalties for firing two bows at the same time.

Now is it realistic he could fire two bows? No, and our GM said said no to using and firing two muskets for that reason. However the Rules state a Kasatha can use and fire two bows in one full attack action.

and that ranger archetype say:

PRD wrote:


Twin Bows (Ex): At 1st level, a bow nomad can simultaneously wield a combination of two of any of the following ranged weapons: shortbow, longbow, and their composite versions. When a bow nomad makes a full attack with two bows, two weapon penalties apply and can be offset with Two-Weapon Fighting feats. Since bows aren’t light weapons, a bow nomad with Two-Weapon Fighting takes a –4 penalty on attacks with each of her bows. Extra attacks from other sources, such as those granted by Manyshot or Rapid Shot, can be applied to only one of the wielded bows per round. This ability replaces wild empathy.

Several instances of two. Zero instances of multi.

He is fighting with 2 weapons and applying 2 weapon combat and the Two-Weapon Fighting feats. Not multi weapon combat or Multiweapon Fighting.

Inferring something about how multi weapon combat should apply from that as no value.

If we apply Multiweapon Fighting to wielding 2 bows that way we get that he is using one bow with one primary and one secondary hand and the other with 2 secondary hands.
So what we should do? Stack the penalties?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Talonhawke wrote:
Yes any variances from normal operations are in the ability sections. For the rules to change for a creature those changes are spelled out somewhere not just plugged in with no accompanying rules. The marillith has 6 off hands nothing spells out that this is a difference than how a future 6 armed construct might work. It does spell out why there are no penalties. If it just broke the rules then it would just have the attacks listed with out explaining the reason why there were no penalties.

So a animate object in the form of a statue get an additional attack without the need to spend Construction Points to buy the Additional Attack ability, right? And if it is a statue of the goddess Kali by your logic it get 4 attack.

Instead it has to pay for it.
PRD wrote:


Additional Attack (Ex, 1 CP): Gains an additional slam attack.

How many creatures with 2 arms have 1 slam attack.

And just to make the opposite example:
PRD wrote:


Shoggoth
This immense mound of black slime thunders forward, eyes and mouths and even stranger things forming in its heaving bulk.
Melee 4 slams +30 (3d6+15/19–20 plus grab)

4 slam attack, zero arms.

So no, the number of appendages alone don't grant an equal number of attacks.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
CBDunkerson wrote:
Calth wrote:
Natural weapon attacks do not follow the same rules as manufactured weapon attacks, which is what the discussion is about, so your first point is irrelevant.
So... Kasatha can use their four arms to make four fist natural weapon attacks... but not four manufactured weapon attacks? If they put on gauntlets the punching action suddenly becomes impossible for two arms?

With the right spell I can transform in plenty of creatures with a large number of natural attacks (a gargoyles is a common example). I get all the natural attacks.

I don't get more weapon attacks that those allowed by my natural form.

Natural attacks and weapon attacks follow different rules.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Derek Dalton wrote:

Read People of the stars. It talks about the Kasatha. It states they have a primary hand and three off hands. Then it went on to talk about a Ranger Archtype that uses two bows. They stated a Kasatha can take all the Two weapon fighting feats to reduce the penalty for using two bows.

So by that logic Multi Weapon fighting is the first feat they should pick up then Greater and Improved Two weapon fighting. So at first level Kasatha using four light weapons has four attacks. One from his primary hand, one from all of his off hands. As they go up in levels that number improves depending on his BAB and feats. A seventh level fighter with both MultiWeapon fighting and Improved Two Weapon fighting has 8 attacks.

Actually it say:

PRD wrote:


Twin Bows (Ex): At 1st level, a bow nomad can simultaneously wield a combination of two of any of the following ranged weapons: shortbow, longbow, and their composite versions. When a bow nomad makes a full attack with two bows, two weapon penalties apply and can be offset with Two-Weapon Fighting feats. Since bows aren’t light weapons, a bow nomad with Two-Weapon Fighting takes a –4 penalty on attacks with each of her bows. Extra attacks from other sources, such as those granted by Manyshot or Rapid Shot, can be applied to only one of the wielded bows per round. This ability replaces wild empathy.

Several instances of two. Zero instances of multi.

He is fighting with 2 weapons and applying 2 weapon combat and the Two-Weapon Fighting feats. Not multi weapon combat or Multiweapon Fighting.

Inferring something about how multi weapon combat should apply from that as no value.

If we apply Multiweapon Fighting to wielding 2 bows that way we get that he is using one bow with one primary and one secondary hand and the other with 2 secondary hands.
So what we should do? Stack the penalties?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Talonhawke wrote:
Which is where Vestigal arms comes back in by specifically pointing out no extra attacks are gained we see a precedent set that under normal circumstances extra arms means extra attacks granted.

Note that the rule about vestigial arms don't only disallow armed attack, but natural attacks too.

That change the question and make Multiweapon Fighting irrelevant.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The other thread.
It is better to use that thread for rule discussions. At least we will avoid repeating the same arguments again and again.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It is better to add "weapon attacks" in that question. As written it can be interpreted as including natural attacks.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
fretgod99 wrote:

I understand that is your reading of things. I addressed why it isn't accurate above (why have a rule in the combat section of the CRB when no PC is ever going to have to deal with the issue?). I also didn't gloss over that first sentence; I noted that it was a precise restatement of the ordinary rule.

That the TWF feat quotes essentially the whole two-weapon fighting rule is helpful, but unnecessary. The only thing that is actually relevant to that feat is the language regarding penalties because that is the only thing the feat impacts. This is precisely the same with MWF. MWF then mirrors the same "this is how the penalties would ordinarily work" language, but adapted for more than two arms.

In so doing, it explicitly mentions making attacks with all the arms the creature has. Ergo, all arms can be used to attack. And this is a feat that is available to PCs. As I mentioned above, the Bestiary specifically contemplates this when it notes that PCs could qualify for them.

So, we know PCs can qualify for MWF if they meet all the prereqs. We know the normal state for creatures attacking with all their arms is to incur penalties as listed in the MWF feat Normal section. We know because of that that multi-armed creatures can therefore attack with all of their arms.

I'm not seeing where the problem is.

Simply that it don't state what you say. You are using wishful thinking, not reading the text.

Pathfinder is a permissive system (up to a point). You don't get permission, you can't do a thing.
Getting an extra attack require a specific permission, it is not something that you can infer "because it seem logic". Especially when there are plenty of examples of creatures that don't get the same number of attacks as the available appendages.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
fretgod99 wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:


Find a piece of text that is not a creature specific rule and say "If you wield multiple weapons in your off hands, you can get one extra attack per hand during a round with each of those weapons." or something similar.
RAW wrote:
A creature without this feat takes a –6 penalty on attacks made with its primary hand and a –10 penalty on attacks made with all of its off hands.

Not worth arguing.

House rule it at your table if you so wish.

If we use your logic, the Marilith entry is wrong.

PRD wrote:


Marilith
Melee +1 longsword +24/+19/+14/+9 (2d6+8/17–20), 5 +1 longswords +24 (2d6+4/17–20), tail slap +17 (2d6+3 plus grab) or 6 slams +22 (1d8+7), tail slap +17 (2d6+3 plus grab)
Feats Bleeding Critical, Combat Expertise, Combat Reflexes, Critical Focus, Improved Critical (longsword), Improved Disarm, Power Attack, Weapon Focus (longsword)
Multiweapon Mastery (Ex) A marilith never takes penalties to her attack roll when fighting with multiple weapons.

Where is the Multiweapon Fighting feat that you say will grant her multiple attacks with multiple off hands?

Multiweapon Mastery text is very clear and it don't allow multiple attacks too.
So having multiple attacks isn't part of the feat, it is part of the creature structure.

Diego, this is precisely the point. The default position is that you can make the number of attacks for the number of arms you naturally have. This is true whether TWF or MWF. The Marilith doesn't need MWF to make the multiple attacks. However, without MWF, the Marilith would be taking massive penalties to its attacks with each weapon. Fortunately, it has a better ability that MWF (which reduces relevant penalties): Multiweapon Master (which removes any such penalties altogether).

All is in order.

You guys are trying to link the number of appendages to the number of attacks.

Kasatha (bestiary) Melee sai +3 (1d4+1) or unarmed strike +3 (1d6+1) or flurry of blows +2/+2 (1d6+1) - 4 arms, 1 attack. Or 2 attacks with flurry of blows.

D'ziriak This four-armed creature looks like a cross between a human and a black and ochre termite. Its body and arms display glowing runes. Melee 2 claws +6 (1d6+1 plus grab) - 4 arms, 2 claw attacks.

Xill Melee short swords +13/+13/+8 (1d6+3/19–20), claw +13 (1d4+3 plus grab), bite +7 (1d3+1 plus paralysis), or 4 claws +13 (1d4+3 plus grab), bite +12 (1d3+3 plus paralysis) - Multiweapon Mastery (Ex) A xill never takes penalties to an attack roll when fighting with multiple weapons, and treats claws as primary attacks even when also wielding weapons. - 4 arms, 1 weapon attack

Four-Armed Sahuagin: These mutants have four arms, giving them two additional claw attacks. Four-armed sahuagin gain Multiattack and Toughness as bonus feats, and gain the multiweapon mastery ability. They have a base CR of 3. Four-armed sahuagin excel as barbarians, fighters, and rangers. - adding 2 arms give 2 claw attacks, not weapon attacks

So, where is this "default position"?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Snowlilly wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:


Find a piece of text that is not a creature specific rule and say "If you wield multiple weapons in your off hands, you can get one extra attack per hand during a round with each of those weapons." or something similar.
RAW wrote:
A creature without this feat takes a –6 penalty on attacks made with its primary hand and a –10 penalty on attacks made with all of its off hands.

Not worth arguing.

House rule it at your table if you so wish.

If we use your logic, the Marilith entry is wrong.

PRD wrote:


Marilith
Melee +1 longsword +24/+19/+14/+9 (2d6+8/17–20), 5 +1 longswords +24 (2d6+4/17–20), tail slap +17 (2d6+3 plus grab) or 6 slams +22 (1d8+7), tail slap +17 (2d6+3 plus grab)
Feats Bleeding Critical, Combat Expertise, Combat Reflexes, Critical Focus, Improved Critical (longsword), Improved Disarm, Power Attack, Weapon Focus (longsword)
Multiweapon Mastery (Ex) A marilith never takes penalties to her attack roll when fighting with multiple weapons.

Where is the Multiweapon Fighting feat that you say will grant her multiple attacks with multiple off hands?

Multiweapon Mastery text is very clear and it don't allow multiple attacks too.
So having multiple attacks isn't part of the feat, it is part of the creature structure.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Calth wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
What rule then allows a Marilith to make more than 2 attacks?
Its a bestiary creature, which, per the design team, are explicitly allowed to break PC rules.

She don't even need to break rules. She is a bestiary creature, so she has her special rules.

Specifically:

PRD wrote:
Melee: The creature's melee attacks are listed here, with its attack roll modifier listed after the attack's name followed by the damage in parentheses.

That say that number of appendages or shape don't matter. What is written in the appropriate row of the monster description matter.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Snowlilly wrote:
Calth wrote:


Read my post again. I didn't say anything about not qualifying for MWF. But MWF does not grant attacks just as the TWF feat does not. So it is useless for PCs.
Multi-Weapon Fighting wrote:
Normal: A creature without this feat takes a –6 penalty on attacks made with its primary hand and a –10 penalty on attacks made with all of its off hands. (It has one primary hand, and all the others are off hands.) See Two-Weapon Fighting.

Emphasis mine.

The normal condition for creature with 3+ arms is covered in the rules for multi-weapon fighting. Attacks can be made with ALL off hands.

Multi weapon fighting does not grant extra attacks, the creature always has that option. Multi weapon fighting brings the penalty for using all those attacks down to a reasonable level.

But again, it don't grant attacks.

Rules:

PRD wrote:

Two-Weapon Fighting

If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.

Find a piece of text that is not a creature specific rule and say "If you wield multiple weapons in your off hands, you can get one extra attack per hand during a round with each of those weapons." or something similar.

The part Snowlilly bolded can be read as easily as he want to read it or as "it don't matter if you want to use your left upper arm or right lower arm as your off arm, they all suffer the same penalty.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Murdock Mudeater wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:
I might have known that it would require a feat — and that there would be one for it. Thanks, folks.

Natural spell works, but there are other ways too.

You can use metamagic feats to remove the components of the spell that you lack in wild shape.

Eschew Materials is also a good option for casting while transformed.

There are also a few druid archetypes that gain additional wild shape forms which would be able to cast normally while transformed (though you'd still need eschew materials because your gear melds into your form). The Naga Aspirant specifically can, while you could make a sound arguement for a Mountain Druid using the giant shape option of her wild shape.

Multi-classing could also yield good results. The Oracle already has some nifty curse options to remove spell component requirements.

Eschew Materials don't remove the need to use Divine Focuses, and a good number of druid spells require them.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Tels wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:

Today I had a brainstorm that turned out to be a bust where I thought I might be able to make a "Mark Seifter, Game Designer" page and thus have a Facebook page without having to log into my personal Facebook page (which makes me feel super privacy invaded every moment I'm on there for a variety of reasons). However, I just discovered that I have to be logged into my personal account anyway to deal with that page, thus logging in for the first time in maybe a year or two, so seems like a bust. Anyways, the upside is that I do have that page now and you can like it at facebook/MarkSeifterGameDesigner. If I get enough likes, I probably won't notice due to having to log into Facebook, but then maybe I'll post some cool game design stuff on there when I do.

I wonder about the overall use/interest in those sorts of fan pages (Facebook or otherwise), so feel free to respond in this thread about your experiences with them (or opinions for lack of experiences). On the plus, side, it seems like it could be a good way to foster a positive discourse, perhaps, kind of like these AMA threads usually are much nicer and more fun than an average thread.

Mark Seifter, Game Designer.

You might consider dropping into the Pathfinder RPG group from time to time. It has nearly 11,000 followers and many of them don't seem to know about, or use the Pazio forums. Might be interesting to see what they have to say, or maybe do an AMA post on there, or something.

Potentially something to look into! Since I have to be logged in with my personal account, which makes me uncomfortable, I probably won't be active enough for a satisfying AMA though.

You only need a different e-mail and possibly a different phone number to make a new facebook account.

In theory you can only have an account
That's actually a really clever idea, though I wonder if it's too late having linked to my personal page already. It's certainly something to look into!

You can give your old account administrative abilities for the page to your new account, but the link to the old account stay.

If you want to separate them completely the best option seem to create a new page "Mark Seifter, Game Designer" with a slightly different name.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
Tels wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:

Today I had a brainstorm that turned out to be a bust where I thought I might be able to make a "Mark Seifter, Game Designer" page and thus have a Facebook page without having to log into my personal Facebook page (which makes me feel super privacy invaded every moment I'm on there for a variety of reasons). However, I just discovered that I have to be logged into my personal account anyway to deal with that page, thus logging in for the first time in maybe a year or two, so seems like a bust. Anyways, the upside is that I do have that page now and you can like it at facebook/MarkSeifterGameDesigner. If I get enough likes, I probably won't notice due to having to log into Facebook, but then maybe I'll post some cool game design stuff on there when I do.

I wonder about the overall use/interest in those sorts of fan pages (Facebook or otherwise), so feel free to respond in this thread about your experiences with them (or opinions for lack of experiences). On the plus, side, it seems like it could be a good way to foster a positive discourse, perhaps, kind of like these AMA threads usually are much nicer and more fun than an average thread.

Mark Seifter, Game Designer.

You might consider dropping into the Pathfinder RPG group from time to time. It has nearly 11,000 followers and many of them don't seem to know about, or use the Pazio forums. Might be interesting to see what they have to say, or maybe do an AMA post on there, or something.

Potentially something to look into! Since I have to be logged in with my personal account, which makes me uncomfortable, I probably won't be active enough for a satisfying AMA though.

You only need a different e-mail and possibly a different phone number to make a new facebook account.

In theory you can only have an account linked to a living person, but I have made a facebook account with the name of the place where I work and linked a event page to it.
I did that out of ignorance but so far no one has contested it.

That way you can log in e manage your page from a account without any information on it.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If you are making non standard items it is always GM territory and GM rules.
Pathfinder don't have assigned locations to specific effects. So, with the GM permission, you can have a pair of boots of positive channeling, if you want.

On the other hand the location assigned to standard, non custom, items have been chosen because they are thematically linked to the effect or are because, for balance reasons, it is better if a player don't get 2 specific effect together.

The most important limit is that the price of an item that use one of the body slots is doubled if it is crafted in a form that don't use any body slots.

A classical example are the ioun stones. A ioun stone giving a +2 to a characteristic cost x2 the price of a belt increasing the same characteristic.

You can combine the two items in a single one using this rule, but again ti require GM permission.

PRD wrote:


Adding New Abilities

Sometimes, lack of funds or time make it impossible for a magic item crafter to create the desired item from scratch. Fortunately, it is possible to enhance or build upon an existing magic item. Only time, gold, and the various prerequisites required of the new ability to be added to the magic item restrict the type of additional powers one can place.

The cost to add additional abilities to an item is the same as if the item was not magical, less the value of the original item. Thus, a +1 longsword can be made into a +2 vorpal longsword, with the cost to create it being equal to that of a +2 vorpal sword minus the cost of a +1 longsword.

If the item is one that occupies a specific place on a character's body, the cost of adding any additional ability to that item increases by 50%. For example, if a character adds the power to confer invisibility to her ring of protection +2, the cost of adding this ability is the same as for creating a ring of invisibility multiplied by 1.5.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Or as I suggested, 25 gp/day for a scroll.

1 to 50 of 9,617 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.