|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
HANDS
Multi-Armed Characters: Characters that have more than two hands,
like kasathas, can hold more items and weapons than typically
expected. Performing actions with multiple pairs of arms concurrently
is a challenge and can’t be done without intensive training. You must
designate a pair of hands as your active hands. You can change this
designation from one pair of hands to another by taking the Switch
Active Hands action, which is an Interact action. You can only attack
with weapons wielded in your active hands.
Can you designate any 2 two hands you have as active with this action? Or must you choose top/bottom pair for a Kasatha or top/middle/bottom pair for a Skittermander?
Is this really meant to be a interact (therefore manipulate) action that provokes AoOs?
|
Designate a pair of hands as your active hands. Will this apply to non-combat actions as well? For example, I have 4 arms, I take my first action to hack a computer using 2 arms, then use my second action to switch to my two arms holding a rifle, and my third action to take a shot.
I hope we don't have to track which pair of arms. Depending on the weapon same side pairs or diagonal pairs might work better.
I get the need to balance multi-armed characters for damage output, but feel that should be kept a diverse choice-wise as posable.
What about a Skittermander trying to hack 3 computers (one during each of 3 actions), would there be a similar -5 -10 multi-skill check penalty similar to multiple attacks? and or need to take a Switch Active Hands action?
I'm wondering if the -5 -10 multi-attack penalties already balance having multiple arms.
Here's another example:
First action, strike with a two-handed weapon.
Second action, switch Active Hands.
Third action, raise shield.
Not sure what I think of this one. It is something a two-armed character could not do normally, but the loss of two additional attacks to get raise shield. Maybe with a two-handed shield that can take more damage?
Another idea for multi-armed characters is you can freely change weapons after the first attack, as long as the 2nd and 3rd attacks only use basic melee weapons, small arms, or a shield block. Keeps them versatile but limits mass damage options.
Hacking would be a three action activity under SF1 durations, so that scenario at least is moot.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd definitely like for it to lose the interact trait. Even if it needs to cost an action for reasonable balance purposes, being able to swap between weapons without provoking reactions should be part of the advantage of multiple pairs of arms.
There’s probably a connection between arms and an ancestry’s ‘power budget’, so it has some benefit.
What might help is an ‘off-arm’ tag for stuff that doesn’t need an ‘actice’ arm.
I’d say switching active arms shouldn’t provoke AoOs … and let’s see who HAS them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that taking an attack of opportunity for switching active hands (how would that even work? Do you have to do jazz hands every time you swap?) is a bit silly. It might be better to just have a bespoke Switch Active Hands action that lacks the manipulate trait, or at the very least state that the Interact action to switch active hands loses the manipulate trait.
"let me do a four handed hand shake introduction First the top hands then the bottom and...
"WHAP OF OPORTUNITY
"What the hell!!!
"Interact action. muahahahah!
I agree that taking an attack of opportunity for switching active hands (how would that even work? Do you have to do jazz hands every time you swap?) is a bit silly. It might be better to just have a bespoke Switch Active Hands action that lacks the manipulate trait, or at the very least state that the Interact action to switch active hands loses the manipulate trait.
I'd lean towards that or that Switch Active Hands has an explicit 'this does not set off Attacks of Opportunity' language. I can imagine having to shift something (a stance for rifle would have to change to a stance for doshko), but not to where it'd drop your defences that much. I think.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I imagine "how to make many-armed characters fun, functional, but also not unbalancing" is going to be a major stress test during the playtest.
Also, remember that Attack of Opportunity (now "Reactive Strike" in the ORC) is fairly rare in PF2 (something like 1/8th of the bestiary has it, fighters have it, and about half of the remaining martials can choose it as a feat.) I would imagine Starfinder 2e would have an even more diverse set of reactions compared to PF2. Note that the Soldier in the Field Test gets punitive strike for only 1/3 subclasses, and that version is only AoO against "someone who you have inflicted the suppressed status on."
I imagine "how to make many-armed characters fun, functional, but also not unbalancing" is going to be a major stress test during the playtest.
Also, remember that Attack of Opportunity (now "Reactive Strike" in the ORC) is fairly rare in PF2 (something like 1/8th of the bestiary has it, fighters have it, and about half of the remaining martials can choose it as a feat.) I would imagine Starfinder 2e would have an even more diverse set of reactions compared to PF2. Note that the Soldier in the Field Test gets punitive strike for only 1/3 subclasses, and that version is only AoO against "someone who you have inflicted the suppressed status on."
AoO itself will also be even rarer, as many of the people who would have it - trained soldiers, mostly -will prefer to fight at range.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just noticed this in the field test document:
QUICK-SWAP [reaction] FEAT 1
SOLDIER
Trigger You are wielding a two-handed weapon and a creature
moves adjacent to you.
You stow your current weapon and draw another two-handed
weapon. If you have multiple sets of arms, you can instead choose
a set to become active.
I don't think the Pathfinder 2e system is particularly interested in protecting your basic schtick from AoOs, since they're so rare. Like basically everything the Magus does provokes, but that means you just play the class differently in contexts where you're fighting monsters with Opportunity Attacks.
I imagine in Starfinder where the default assumption is "ranged combat" that there will be even fewer AoOs out there.
I don't think the Quick-Swap feat in the field test would provoke though if you're like "holding 2 big weapons because you have 4 arms" since it doesn't specify an interact action or have the manipulate trait.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do think there is merit to the active hands mechanic: without it, a multi-handed character could do stuff like dual-wield guns and reload them with free hands, wield a two-handed weapon while also soaking up damage with a shield, plus have a free hand to do Athletics maneuvers and Interact alongside that, all at level 1. Given the proper feat commitment, all of that could probably be made to be okay, but breaking 2e's tight hand economy at level 1 with no investment other than picking the right ancestry is almost certainly imbalanced. Turning that hand economy benefit into an action economy benefit instead, with the possibility of buildinng further on the mechanic via ancestry or general feats, I think is the reasonable way of going about it.
The whole setup of needing actions to switch between "active" hands is garbage. You can use your hands while walking - more limbs doesn't need more coordination than you get as a toddler.
I mean they are aliens, so we don't really know. But given that it is quite difficult to for example use a drum set with all your limbs or coordinate your body during extreme stress situations (like combat), it is not entirely nonsense. But in the end it is about 90% a balance thing, as PF2 does a lot of balancing via hands. Not great, but necessary. Let's hope the devs manage to find a good middle ground.
However, even if the rules were kept as-is, I can guarantee you that most home games are not going to bother outside of encounters. Those actions are assumed to be happening in the background, just like you don't deal with Interact actions to get stuff out of your bag 99% of the time.
I figure in order to coordinate all of your limbs at once you're going to need to spend feats on it (we can see that the Soldier has "swap the bigass gun you're holding for the bigass melee weapon you're holding" as a reaction which is reasonable (*drawing* the weapon would provoke a reaction strike, but switching hands wouldn't.)
So this is balanced by "you have to spend feats to do this effectively in a stressful situation" (and people with 0-2 arms don't have to spend those feats) and also "when those feats are available might be level gated." What's pretty clear is that you're not going to get extra actions because you have extra arms. So even if you have your extra arms reloading for you, you still have to spend whatever actions to reload.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do think there is merit to the active hands mechanic: without it, a multi-handed character could do stuff like dual-wield guns and reload them with free hands, wield a two-handed weapon while also soaking up damage with a shield, plus have a free hand to do Athletics maneuvers and Interact alongside that, all at level 1. Given the proper feat commitment, all of that could probably be made to be okay, but breaking 2e's tight hand economy at level 1 with no investment other than picking the right ancestry is almost certainly imbalanced. Turning that hand economy benefit into an action economy benefit instead, with the possibility of buildinng further on the mechanic via ancestry or general feats, I think is the reasonable way of going about it.
They can do all that now, with a core race, and it's never been an issue.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They can do all that now, with a core race, and it's never been an issue.
I am not aware of any ancestry in Pathfinder2e that has more than two hands.
If you are talking about Starfinder1e and the many multi-armed races there, then you have to understand that you are talking about two different game engines with different balance considerations.
In PF2, a lot of item usage is tied to the number of hands you have available and how many hands the item takes to use. For example, the Wand of Manifold Missiles will stop working when it is no longer being wielded. Even getting an additional 'hand' with something like Skillful Tresses is generally ruled that holding the Wand in your hair is no longer considered Wielding the wand and it will deactivate.
So for SF2 which balance option do you like:
1) Ancestries with multiple sets of arms have to spend an action switching between sets and for inactive hands, items held are no longer considered to be being wielded, and if those hands are empty they cannot be used for interact actions.
2) Ancestries with multiple sets of arms can use their many hands freely, but it comes with a rather heavy cost to their Ancestry build budget - meaning that they won't be given other cultural or physiological abilities that provide mechanical benefits.
There are just going to be characters you could build in SF1 that won't work in SF2. This is the nature of an edition change. There will probably be more SF2 characters that you couldn't make in SF1, but you're going to lose some stuff you used to do.
Thurston said they wanted to keep the meta from SF1 into the SF2 engine. Hands is part of that.
Keeping the same general meta and vibe as in SF1e does not equate to making SF2e into the exact same game. At the end of the day, 2e is a different system with fundamentally different mechanics and balance considerations, which is why content elements like the Soldier are being handled differently. The same goes for extra hands: including extra hands is what keeping the meta is about. Letting you break the hand economy without any tradeoffs whatsoever is not, and Paizo is not going to wreck their system's balance just so you can use four hands at-will at level 1 without any feat commitment.
Thurston said they wanted to keep the meta from SF1 into the SF2 engine. Hands is part of that.
But, the rules for "how a many-armed character operates" have yet to be written for Pathfinder 2e. So we're going to need new rules for that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thurston said they wanted to keep the meta from SF1 into the SF2 engine. Hands is part of that.
Having ancestries with multiple sets of hands is part of Starfinder. From everything that the designers have said, that certainly isn't going away.
How that works mechanically may be different between SF1 and SF2.
One-handed items are different. I have no problem seeing a kasatha simultaneously wielding a pistol, a sword, a shield, and keeping one hand ready for grabbing things as needed.
How about a Thaumaturge that is holding a 1-handed weapon, a Thaumaturge Implement, a shield, and has a hand free?
Because that is definitely something that is an absolute no-go in PF2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having a third arm to hold a shield is an incredible advantage in PF2, FWIW. Two handed weapons are balanced by having something like two die sizes (a staff goes from 1d4 to 1d8 with 2 hands, a bastard sword goes from 1d8 to 1d12.)
Giving an ancestry an extra hand so they can hold a shield and wield a d12 weapon would probably be the single most powerful thing any ancestry grants right out of the gate. Now Starfinder has different assumptions about "the prevalence of ranged combat" but +2 AC is +2 AC.
You can solve this a little bit on the Starfinder side of things by "not having shields around that are effective against gunfire" but since the games are compatible I expect to see a lot of Kasatha Paladins with polearms and shields.
If the only cost is "you absolutely should never allow a Kasatha or other multi-armed ancestry in a PF2 game" then I can live with that, I guess.
I guess an alternative rule would be to prevent shields from being used with 2 handed weapons in any context. You can wield a shield with 3 pistols, but you can't wield a shield with a rotolaser or a greataxe.
Since like, having a 1d6 agile weapon to alternate with your 1d12 greataxe isn't nearly as big an advantage as "you can spend an action for +2 AC".
Managing Creative Director (Starfinder)
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Saw some comments here invoking my name... so....
By the "meta" I mean that SF2E is going to have a different meta-state than the PF2 meta. This means there's going to be different baseline assumptions for what party makeup looks like and what abilities are available to specific parties.
A good example of this would be that we're going to allow for 1st-level characters with certain ancestries to get unrestricted flight. In PF2's meta this would be an immense change and break all semblance of balance. In SF2, well... guns exist and it's not really a massive game-breaking option.
Multi-armed characters is something we're exploring in this space too. There's going to be some action-tax for swapping arms in some ways (or high-level ancestry feats as some have guessed), because it's out intent to create some potent one-shot area weapons (hey missile launcher!) that we don't want say, a soldier, to be able to wield 3 of when playing a skittermander.
Oh, and yeah, the AoO thing is absolutely just an oversight on our part and we'll adjust.
Oh, and yeah, the AoO thing is absolutely just an oversight on our part and we'll adjust.
Love to see it, thanks! (Getting such fast responses on something like this really ramps up my excitement for the upcoming playtest and system.)
Multi-armed characters is something we're exploring in this space too. There's going to be some action-tax for swapping arms in some ways (or high-level ancestry feats as some have guessed), because it's out intent to create some potent one-shot area weapons (hey missile launcher!) that we don't want say, a soldier, to be able to wield 3 of when playing a skittermander.
I'm picturing skittermanders with feats for something like "stride up to half move speed and switch hands" still making for very scary triple-missile-launcher soldier builds without being must-take.
Hopefully having an action cost to swap will also make extra arm augmentations more accessible than how SF1 priced them. I know "swoltrid" and "Spider-Mander" are both popular concepts.
(If the hand rules as they are went out, the most immediate clarification I can see being needed for balance is that Thaumaturge's Implement's Empowerment must use an implement in an active hand.)
Just imagining a Skittermander with three massive rocket launchers... damn XD
But single-use (per fight) weapon systems are a very interesting design space that the system hasn't explored much yet. Kinda requires Automatic Bonus Progression to work atm, so one more reason to have that as standard ^^
LEGS
Some characters, such as humans, have multiple legs. Performing actions with multiple legs concurrently is a challenge and can’t be done without intensive training. You must designate which leg is your active leg. You can change this designation from one leg to another by taking the Switch Active Legs action, which is an Interact action.
This makes as much sense to me. If a naturally 4 armed character needs a feat to type with all 4 hands, why doesn't a naturally 2 armed character need a feat to type with all 2 hands? A 4 armed character using 2 hands is literally the same thing as a 2 armed character using 1 hand.
This is absolutely immersion breaking.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And how many four-armed people have you met personally?
People also have dominant hands. Ever tried writing with your non-dominant hand? How is your handwriting at that point? How about shooting a pistol with your non-dominant hand?
And yet... Starfinder1e doesn't represent that in the game mechanics either.
So maybe don't make 'but reality' arguments when talking about decisions being made for game balance.
I've been thinking a lot about how this should work. One thing about "two handed weapons" that humans use is that they generate a lot more power when you swing them not because "you get to use the strength of both arms" but because the arms are on the opposite side of your body and you can twist your waist and hips in addition to your shoulders to generate additional torque.
So a "big ol' melee weapon" should be better if you wield it with an arm on your left side and an arm on your right side than if you wield it with two right arms- the latter configuration just can't generate as much force.
Whereas if you're aiming a rifle, the one arm is essentially for bracing and the other is for aiming, which you should be able to do just fine with two right arms instead of a right and a left arm. The practical consideration is then it comes down to eye dominance- it is very hard to aim and shoot with your non-dominant eye! I was an abjectly awful shooter personally until I realized that I was cross-dominant (I'm right handed, but left-eyed, so I have to shoot lefty.)
So I guess the way the Kasatha should work in theory with 2h is that you're holding a rifle and a vibro-axe each with a left and a right arm. If you need to swing the axe at someone, you will need to move the rifle out of the way (perhaps by changing your grip). With pistols, you absolutely could wield as many of them as you have hands, because you just fire them in sequence using your dominant eye to aim, since you aim pistols by holding them away from your body and you aim longarms by holding them close.
And how many four-armed people have you met personally?
People also have dominant hands. Ever tried writing with your non-dominant hand? How is your handwriting at that point? How about shooting a pistol with your non-dominant hand?
And yet... Starfinder1e doesn't represent that in the game mechanics either.
So maybe don't make 'but reality' arguments when talking about decisions being made for game balance.
I'm sorry, are we discussing a -2 penalty to using your off hand or being physically incapable of using both hands? That's a rhetorical question, we are discussing using both hands.
I'm holding a banana in each hand. I move one hand to my mouth and take a bite. I move the other hand to my mouth and take a bite. How many people do you know that need to spend a mental equivalent to a third action to "switch hands" first?
How many people would need as much training at becoming proficient in a weapon or instrument to do such?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
-2 penalties for using your off-hand don't exist in PF2, FWIW.
Everybody can, by default, fight with two weapons. It's just that the default advantage of doing so is "you have two weapons, which have different traits" not "you get extra attacks."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry, are we discussing a -2 penalty to using your off hand or being physically incapable of using both hands? That's a rhetorical question, we are discussing using both hands.
You are proposing using both hands equally effectively and at the exact same time to do different things.
Try rubbing your belly and patting your head.
-2 penalties for using your off-hand don't exist in PF2, FWIW.
Everybody can, by default, fight with two weapons. It's just that the default advantage of doing so is "you have two weapons, which have different traits" not "you get extra attacks."
Moves the goalpost back
And how many people do you know that need to spend a mental equivalent to a third action to "switch hands" first?
Because, extra attacks are not the question at hand. But if you can quote where I said 4 arms = 4 attacks, I'd thank you kindly.
What we are talking about, is someone not being able to push a button with their left hand because they did not spend a separate action to "activate" their left hand.
Do you need to activate your left hand to press a button? Do you then need to activate your right hand to open a door? Does that activation take literally as much effort as actually opening the door?
These are also rhetorical questions and the answer is no. Though I'm sure brain damage is capable of such an impact.
You are proposing using both hands equally effectively and at the exact same time to do different things.
Try rubbing your belly and patting your head.
Which you can do and it literally requires no training.
Tell me, can you type with both hands? Did you spend as much time and effort as learning a musical instrument to do so? Did you even spend effort or did you just naturally get better at it as your grew up? Has every human that doesn't type one handed spent a feat to do so?
Let us be clear here: We are not talking about having 4 hands and thus having 4 actions. We are talking about having 4 hands and being able to use 4 hands. So hand 1 spends an action to pick up a grape, hand 2 spends an action to pick up a grape, and hand 3 spends an action to pick up a grape.
What the rule and people are arguing for: Hand 1 spends an action to pick up an grape, hand 2 spends an action to pick up an grape, brain uses the same amount of effort to spend an action to 'switch hands', wait until next turn, hand 3 spends an action to pick up a grape. However: If hand 1 spends the action each time, we can pick up 3 grapes.
We are fine with 3 grapes being picked up with 3 actions. We are not fine with 3 grapes being picked up with 3 actions if 3 hands are involved.
If they are a 4 armed character, them only using 2 arms is exactly the same as a 2 armed character only using 1 arm. So if a 4 armed character needs to spend an action to switch between their limb sets, then a 2 armed character needs to spend an action to switch between their dominant limb.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The point is that the decisions are being made for game balance reasons.
There are plenty of ways to justify that decision in-game if you decide to look for and accept one.
Or you could decide to reject all of them and just decide that this is too immersion breaking to have a fun game with your friends with.
Up to you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The point is that the decisions are being made for game balance reasons.
There are plenty of ways to justify that decision in-game if you decide to look for and accept one.
Or you could decide to reject all of them and just decide that this is too immersion breaking to have a fun game with your friends with.
Up to you.
"It's for game balance" is not the end all be all excuse you seem to think it is. It certainly doesn't make something immune to criticism. Nor is this option the only way to mechanically balance multi-limbs.
If they have the advantage of multi-limbs, then they can have the disadvantage of something else. Literally anything other than "they only kinda have multi-limbs". None of the multi-limbed species have options for better senses, or flight, or what have you.
You can find a justification for literally anything if you look for and accept one. "I only got two rules. 1: Never kill someone without a reason. 2: You can always find a reason to kill someone." That's a terrible argument and I don't recommend it for future use.
Also, if "I use the weapon in arm 1 and the weapon in arm 3" breaks something mechanically, it feels like the deeper issue is with the thing that broke. It's hard to imagine players not coming up with shenanigans that break the thing even worse.
And personally, I very much want even more of the alien cantina effect. The less humanoid bipeds the better. Which this sort of mechanical decision making doesn't really seem to lend itself to.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a difference between constructive criticism and ultimatums.
I'm aware that there are other potential options for balancing multi-limbed ancestries (I proposed one earlier in this thread). So are the game developers. But all of them are going to come with balance considerations.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think we are getting ahead of ourselves with assumptions about multi-armed characters without seeing the actual rules for the relevant ancestries.
It is most likely that the SF2 devs agree with the PF2 devs in that the answer to "what can a member of this ancestry do just from inherent specialness that another ancestry can't" is "not much, really." Ancestries in PF2 basically just give you your attribute mods, your starting HP level, some languages, and special senses. Everything beyond that is either a heritage or an ancestry feat. There is after all a meaningful difference between "I can do X because I'm [ancestry]" and "I can do x because I chose this heritage and this feat" since the latter allows you to play a member of said ancestry who doesn't do X. Like you could build a Vesk without a natural attack, simply by not choosing any of the options that give you one.
I guarantee there will be a low level feat for multi-armed folks that let you do things like "open doors" with your other set of arms. You can use the Ganzi "Skillful Tail" feat as a model- it allows you to use your tail to perform any interact action that doesn't require a check (such as opening a door or taking something out of your pack). It does not allow you to count as "wielding" or "holding" whatever it is. There are later feats to upgrade your tail which represent "what Ganzi are like" (i.e. sort of inherently chaotic). There will likewise be feats that Kasatha can take that will let them do more things with their secondary set of arms that reflect what Kasatha are like.
There is a difference between constructive criticism and ultimatums.
I'm aware that there are other potential options for balancing multi-limbed ancestries (I proposed one earlier in this thread). So are the game developers. But all of them are going to come with balance considerations.
What is your actual point here? It honestly feels like you are arguing for the sake of arguing at this point.
I think we are getting ahead of ourselves with assumptions about multi-armed characters without seeing the actual rules for the relevant ancestries.
Based on the 2e playtest, I think we should push for the most change early. It's not like the devs are going to be more amiable to bigger changes later down the line.
I guarantee there will be a low level feat for multi-armed folks that let you do things like "open doors" with your other set of arms. You can use the Ganzi "Skillful Tail" feat as a model- it allows you to use your tail to perform any interact action that doesn't require a check (such as opening a door or taking something out of your pack). It does not allow you to count as "wielding" or "holding" whatever it is. There are later feats to upgrade your tail which represent "what Ganzi are like" (i.e. sort of inherently chaotic). There will likewise be feats that Kasatha can take that will let them do more things with their secondary set of arms that reflect what Kasatha are like.
Ganzi are a good example to show how a species with different kinds of limbs could operate. Species with a set of "attack" limbs that are stronger and function as "normal", and a smaller set of 'utility' limbs that are limited without feats.
However, the Kasatha do not have two sets of limbs like that. They simply have 4 arms. And I want them to still have 4 arms. Them not being naturally able to use 4 arms without feat investment is like not letting humans jog and run without feat investment and leveling up. Like not letting them open a door with their off hand unless they spend a feat or an extra action. It's wild. Spending feats to do extra stuff or things a bit outside the norm is one matter. Not all humans are ambidextrous, that would be a feat. However, spending feats just to actually use them like they would be used is another entirely.
In Pathfinder, basically everything is a humanoid biped that can perform essentially all the same functions and requires the same living conditions. For intents and purposes, everything is a single species from a single planet. A very baseline "normal" can be established. So having feats that represent minor differences of biology, culture, and magic works better.
It gets wonky with how high of a level some things are. But if we deal away with the assumption that 95% of the planet is level 1 and can't get beyond level 3, some of that wonkiness goes away. Maybe some of the core Dwarf package can't be found at level one, but if the average dwarf is lv 5-8 that's okay. Especially if we tie level to age a bit. "Oh, a dwarf with stonesense at the tender age of 23? Quite a precocious young one aren't we?"
In Starfinder, while the majority of species are bipedal humanoids, there is still a wider variety. What is "normal" is harder to define. You can be a large sized dragon or a sentient colony of oozes. I would prefer for "normal" to be harder to define still in SF2. Give us a bunch of tags that define the baseline actions species can take: A 'Bipedal' 'Humanoid' can do different baseline things than a 'Multi-limbed' 'Insectoid', which has a different baseline still of 'Polymorphic', 'Psychic Communication', 'Natural Telekinesis'. Then feats change things up and add things from there.
So the psychic jellyfish monster uses it's telekinesis to manipulate objects, and it's tentacles are largely vestigial. It has no mouth and can't make much in the way of physical sounds, but can naturally communicate with all(most) lifeforms. It can manipulate objects from a distance, but only one at a time. However, they can spend feats so they can also use their tentacles to manipulate things, letting them spread their actions around. They don't have to do somantic components for spells but they can spend a feat to do some bonus something if they do do them. What I don't want to see, is the psychic jellyfish monster to mechanically behave as a bipedal humanoid until they get to level 8 and have spent enough feats.
Trying to condense my point: A naturally 4 armed creature mechanically behaving like a naturally 2 armed creature until they spend feats is not a fun or interesting game design to me. Further, it doesn't seem to lend itself to having radically different baselines for different species. Which is a design space I'd like to see expanded. I want to play an amorphous blob and have it behave very mechanically different from a human because it is.
So I guess the way the Kasatha should work in theory with 2h is that you're holding a rifle and a vibro-axe each with a left and a right arm. If you need to swing the axe at someone, you will need to move the rifle out of the way (perhaps by changing your grip).
I think that is a good way of describing it in-game. Similar to changing grip. You need to move the items in one set of hands out of the way of the other items that you are trying to use.
As for Kasatha having no mechanical benefits over Humans since they can only use one pair of hands at a time, consider:
If using a 1+ hand weapon like a shortbow and wanting to switch to a 2 hand melee weapon in PF2, the most action efficient way of doing that is to drop the shortbow on the ground and use an interact action to draw the melee weapon. If you want a sword and shield, that will be two separate interact actions to get both of them.
The Kasatha can be holding and using their bow as well as holding either the 2 hand melee weapon or the sword and shield. And in all cases it would only take one action to switch between them. And they wouldn't have to pick up their bow from the ground after the battle - or risk having it stolen - or have to go back to that particular spot of ground in order to get it again if they want to use their bow later in the battle.
So, quite a few minor benefits for having multiple arms even if they are only used one pair at a time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, quite a few minor benefits for having multiple arms even if they are only used one pair at a time.
For a soldier in a real battle that would be a very large benefit. For a group of adventurer swat teams not so much. I'm trying to work through the venn diagram of when it matters.
I'm an archer in the back. Someone gets into melee with me.
I really only care if they have AOOs. Which is.. one monster in 8? Otherwise I just shoot them in the face.
If they can make aoos I can guarded step shoot. This may be advantageous anyway since NPCs seem to have an easier time hitting with multiple attacks than fragile humanoid PCs
If i decide I want to flank more than do the damage myself, I pull the weapon Stab stab. THEN it only matters if i want to go BACK to the bow for some reason. Because drop/draw is the same as switch hands.
My bow is safe in my hand.... but that only matters IF the situation changes. Realistically, a sword in my other hands, or sitting in my sheath is a LOT easier to get than one sitting on my floor. But in game they're all one action to switch. Having the bow in hand tells a difference but it doesn't show much one.