|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
So we have a seeming to leaning towards needing a rule to allow extra attacks to gain them. So what is meant by Multi-Armed saying that only one hand is used as primary and all the extra arms are off-hands? Remembering that off-hands only exist inside of the TWF attack system? It was said that a human can have availble more than one off-hand weapon but can only use one per set off attacks. But those are listed as "can be used as an off-hand weapon" but they aren't extra off-hands.
Thats why I'm in the leaning of the extra hands/arms do grant extra attacks. A kasatha has per the multiarmed rule 1 primary and 3 off hands.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Ehh I like it. Honestly I love the inherent flexibility provided even if I'm always DMing and haven't ever gotten to try out my ideas for it.
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.
Nothing there says monsters just do what they want willy-nilly what it does say is that monsters aren't built by some magic chart, he even gets into what I was talking about if a monster does something that isn't standard in the game, like sundering hyrda heads, its called out in the creature entry not just plugged into the stats with no explanation.
Incorrect, bestiary creatures explicitly from designer commentary and the design contests are allowed to break rules that PCs must follow.
Can you actually back that up? Or are you just gonna throw out "the Designers said so" and leave it. Instead of telling everyone why they are wrong show them where or on top of that give an example of such a creature breaking a rule that can't be implied.
EDIT: Added quote
Nothing about bestiary creatures inherently breaks the rules. They follow the same permissive ruleset as everything else in the game. Now they can have access to abilities that aren't availble to anything outside their race, but again those are spelled out. Why bother spelling out special if the creature can just have the ability? A 6 armed monster gets to make 5 off-hand attacks because it has 6 arms not because some designer wrote it in the stat block.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Which is why I specified Weapon attacks. Can a Kasatha pick up 4 shortswords and swing them all at their opponent at level 1.
As a break off of this thread I am making a thread for dicussion and hopefully if enough clicks are gained a definitive answer to the question, can a creature with extra arms make weapon attacks with all of them without using iterative attacks.
We see several creatures in the bestiary who use x attacks where x is the number of arms in a full attack in the way described above without a special ruling to allow it. We also see some with extra arms who only use 2 in their written attack sequences.
We also see Vestigal Arms which grants arms but gives a specific rule disallowing extra attacks lending to the position that by default extra arms means extra attacks.
And as the entire debate about 2wf with a 2hw showed attacks are made based off of the number of hands availble to normal members that race. If extra hands don't grant extra attacks then why does the Alchemist discovery Vestigal hands call out that they don't grant extra attacks.
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.
Especially with feats like Cleave at low levels getting to hit 2 guys after a move action is great but at higher levels where you may be dealing with a lot more single target fights retraining it into another feat would definitely be beneficial. And also completely allowed.
Bolding mine basic unarmed strikes include kicks and headbutts.
I don't think head-slot items count as armor. Now I do understand that this is a helmet and thus armor from a technical stand point but from a rules stand point isn't armor or shield so it shouldn't affect a druid at all.
3.5 had some rules on this and variant potions and such. Thing complete Arcane or PH 2
I can agree with that. I have just seen so many times of people tripping out over anything martial not being purely and completely realistic. Kinda like when weapon cords got a nerf in part because a developer couldn't really do it that well with his mouse.
Well speaking of Caster/Martial disparity, my gears get ground when people freak out at a Martial doing anything thats beyond real world capability.
What you mean your monk can punch through a stone wall in 5 mins......anime is influencing the system too much.
Your fighter can fall off a 300 ft cliff and walk away......systems broken.
Your barbarian can swim in lava and not die........too unrealistic.
Your adamantine sword cuts rock better than a mining pick.......it's not a lightsaber bro.
Your wizard can stop time teleport in a demonic horde mind control half the enemy forces and nuke the rest........that's the way they made the game don't be upset just house-rule it.
And we also see in some threads that not doing enough damage can make you a jerk.
captain yesterday wrote:
While nothing seriously professional I worked the kitchen at our local country club for about 4 years before I moved, and I know the feeling. i would much rather make a burger at home any day of the week.
I thought it was a rule in PFS that Evil spells are not in and of themselves evil acts?
Casting an evil spell is not an alignment infraction in and of itself, as long as it doesn't violate any codes, tenents of faith, or other such issues. Committing an evil act outside of casting the spell, such as using an evil spell to torture an innocent NPC for information or the like is an alignment infraction. For example: using infernal healing to heal party members is not an evil act.
Edited edit: Ninja'd
Another option might be to look at the kirthfinder docs in this sub-forum the equipment book has a section on limiting found character wealth similar to what was described above. A character would have a set amount of worth they can attune to anything above that will eventually be lost in some manner or another.
What whip are you looking at? The whip pathfinder has up on the PRD is a trip weapon
Whip 1 gp 1d2 1d3 ×2 — 2 lbs. S disarm, nonlethal, reach, trip