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

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

RPG Superstar 2015

Alchemist "Vestigial Arm" discovery question


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 388 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
The Exchange

8 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

First, here's the discovery:

d20pfsrd.com wrote:
Vestigial Arm (Ex): The alchemist gains a new arm (left or right) on his torso. The arm is fully under his control and cannot be concealed except with magic or bulky clothing. The arm does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round, though the arm can wield a weapon and make attacks as part of the alchemist’s attack routine (using two-weapon fighting). The arm can manipulate or hold items as well as the alchemist’s original arms (for example, allowing the alchemist to use one hand to wield a weapon, another hand to hold a potion, and the third hand to throw a bomb). The arm has its own “hand” and “ring” magic item slots (though the alchemist can still only wear two rings and two hand magic items at a time). An alchemist may take this discovery up to two times. Source: Ultimate Magic

So here's my question:

If I were to take this discovery twice, would it be rules legal to have, say, an Alchemist with two-weapon fighting swinging around two two-handed weapons? The specific character concept I have in mind is an alchemist/barbarian (or alchemist/fighter, not sure yet) who wields two falchions while raging and under the effects of his mutagen.

I'm thinking I'll start with a level of barbarian, then take two levels of Alchemist. Use my level 2 discovery and my level 3 feat (via Extra Discovery) to have him sprout two extra arms suddenly as a result of his alchemical experimentations.

It probably isn't worth the two level dip and the feat from a mechanical, damage-dealing standpoint, but I really like the imagery involved. If anybody can point out why I shouldn't be able to do this (in a strictly RAW sense) I'll rethink it.

The Exchange

Since nobody has responded, I'll expand the subject.

I'll stat it out at level 3, since that's the earliest I could get the concept working

Human Barbarian 1/Alchemist (Vivisectionist) 2

Str 16+2
Dex 15
Con 14
Int 12
Wis 10
Cha 7

Feats:
Human bonus: Power Attack
1st lvl: TWF
3rd lvl: Extra Discovery (vestigial arm)

Equip: +1 greatsword, masterwork greatsword, masterwork breastplate

First round of combat he pops his mutagen for +4 strength, and moves into position. Second round, he begins raging and full attacks for +6/+6 to hit, doing 2d6+16/2d6+15 on a hit. This includes -4/-4 for TWF with a weapon that isn't light in the off hand.

Admittedly he could only do that on a very limited basis, especially at 3rd level when he only has a few rounds of barbarian rage per day. I'm mainly curious if this is legal RAW and/or RAI. It seems about right, but it definitely is gray area as far as rules and precedence are concerned.


w0nkothesane wrote:

First, here's the discovery:

d20pfsrd.com wrote:
Vestigial Arm (Ex): The alchemist gains a new arm (left or right) on his torso. The arm is fully under his control and cannot be concealed except with magic or bulky clothing. The arm does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round, though the arm can wield a weapon and make attacks as part of the alchemist’s attack routine (using two-weapon fighting). The arm can manipulate or hold items as well as the alchemist’s original arms (for example, allowing the alchemist to use one hand to wield a weapon, another hand to hold a potion, and the third hand to throw a bomb). The arm has its own “hand” and “ring” magic item slots (though the alchemist can still only wear two rings and two hand magic items at a time). An alchemist may take this discovery up to two times. Source: Ultimate Magic

So here's my question:

If I were to take this discovery twice, would it be rules legal to have, say, an Alchemist with two-weapon fighting swinging around two two-handed weapons? The specific character concept I have in mind is an alchemist/barbarian (or alchemist/fighter, not sure yet) who wields two falchions while raging and under the effects of his mutagen.

I'm thinking I'll start with a level of barbarian, then take two levels of Alchemist. Use my level 2 discovery and my level 3 feat (via Extra Discovery) to have him sprout two extra arms suddenly as a result of his alchemical experimentations.

It probably isn't worth the two level dip and the feat from a mechanical, damage-dealing standpoint, but I really like the imagery involved. If anybody can point out why I shouldn't be able to do this (in a strictly RAW sense) I'll rethink it.

I was thinking Ranger/Alchemist with TWF (to ignore the Dex requirements), but I do believe it's possible. You have 2 hands to put on the weapon. You have 2 weapons. The rules associated with Vestigial Arm specifically say "no additional attacks," but you're not utilizing it for anything outside the existing combat structure. You're just using Two Weapon Fighting.

Now, the bigger question is how you plan to handle the weapon issue as it applies to the TWF penalty. You're still looking at -4 on all attacks, which hurts...bad. It gets particularly bad when you look at using Power Attack. I guess it all depends on how you build it, though.

Edit: The other thing you can do with this is have a Glaive + Greatsword (or similar) combo, where you get to mess with reach and only use one weapon at a time. This can also be rather intriguing.

Shadow Lodge

w0nkothesane wrote:

Human bonus: Power Attack

1st lvl: TWF
3rd lvl: Extra Discovery (vestigial arm)

Equip: +1 greatsword, masterwork greatsword, masterwork breastplate

First round of combat he pops his mutagen for +4 strength, and moves into position. Second round, he begins raging and full attacks for +6/+6 to hit, doing 2d6+16/2d6+15 on a hit. This includes -4/-4 for TWF with a weapon that isn't light in the off hand.

Admittedly he could only do that on a very limited basis, especially at 3rd level when he only has a few rounds of barbarian rage per day. I'm mainly curious if this is legal RAW and/or RAI. It seems about right, but it definitely is gray area as far as rules and precedence are concerned.

I'm trying to figure out how you are wielding two two handed weapons with only three arms.


0gre wrote:
I'm trying to figure out how you are wielding two two handed weapons with only three arms.

Discovery at alchemist 2 is vestigial arm, then extra discovery vestigial arm for +2 arms- 4 arms total.

The Exchange

Regarding TWF without a light weapon in the off-hand: that DOES hurt, especially early on, but I can't think of much that can be done about it. It's only -2 over what a normal TWF would be taking, so I figure it's bearable, and it gets easier as you gain more levels.

One way to help counteract that is through mutagen and rage. Luckily, they provide differently typed +4 bonuses to strength, meaning that at level three, he can imbibe his mutagen (for every fight if your group doesn't mind waiting an hour between) and rage for a massive +8 strength, bringing my particular build to 26 strength.

I'm now thinking instead of greatswords I'll be a bit more varied and go with a lucerne hammer in two hands and a bardiche in the other two. I get reach, which combines with my fast movement speed to get me into full attack position that much more quickly.

I'm going to use this level 3 character in a test game as my group tries out d20 pro. Normally we avoid cheese and really bizarre concepts, but for this the GM gave us his blessing to go full dirty, so I'm going to have a lot of fun with this.

0gre wrote:
I'm trying to figure out how you are wielding two two handed weapons with only three arms.
Momar wrote:
Discovery at alchemist 2 is vestigial arm, then extra discovery vestigial arm for +2 arms- 4 arms total.

This.


Wouldn't you have to use the Multiweapon Fighting monster feat at that point? I also didn't know you could take discoveries more than once.


Vestigial arm wrote:
An alchemist may take this discovery up to two times.


Sizik wrote:
Vestigial arm wrote:
An alchemist may take this discovery up to two times.

Ah, didn't see that. Cool. Four armed, bomb-chucking Mr. Hyde ahoy!


Lurk3r wrote:
Wouldn't you have to use the Multiweapon Fighting monster feat at that point? I also didn't know you could take discoveries more than once.

Multiattack the monster feat is only applicable for natural weapons and dosent help an alch since all the natural attacks from ferral mutagen are primary and multiattack only redcues the secondary penalty attack from -5 to -2


Phasics wrote:
Lurk3r wrote:
Wouldn't you have to use the Multiweapon Fighting monster feat at that point? I also didn't know you could take discoveries more than once.
Multiattack the monster feat is only applicable for natural weapons and dosent help an alch since all the natural attacks from ferral mutagen are primary and multiattack only redcues the secondary penalty attack from -5 to -2

He didn't say Multiatttack.

Liberty's Edge

Phasics wrote:
Lurk3r wrote:
Wouldn't you have to use the Multiweapon Fighting monster feat at that point? I also didn't know you could take discoveries more than once.
Multiattack the monster feat is only applicable for natural weapons and dosent help an alch since all the natural attacks from ferral mutagen are primary and multiattack only redcues the secondary penalty attack from -5 to -2

Multiattack reduces penalties on secondary natural attacks. Multiweapon Fighting applies to weapon attacks.


He'd get multi-weapon fighting automatically upon getting his 3rd arm at 2nd level if he had taken TWF at lvl 1.

multi-weapon fighting wrote:
Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms.

He doesn't NEED multi-weapon fighting since he is still only using 2 weapons, so TWF does it well enough, but he gets it anyways.

My question would be STR bonus to damage. Does he full str with 1 weapon and half str with the other since it is main hand/off hand.

Does he get str+1/2 with the main hand and 1/2 str with the other since it 2-handed and off-hand?

Does 2-handed just bump the str bonus up 1/2, meaning he would get 1+1/2 Str with the main hand and full str with the off (1/2 for off-hand + 1/2 for 2-handed)?


Howie23 wrote:
Phasics wrote:
Lurk3r wrote:
Wouldn't you have to use the Multiweapon Fighting monster feat at that point? I also didn't know you could take discoveries more than once.
Multiattack the monster feat is only applicable for natural weapons and dosent help an alch since all the natural attacks from ferral mutagen are primary and multiattack only redcues the secondary penalty attack from -5 to -2
Multiattack reduces penalties on secondary natural attacks. Multiweapon Fighting applies to weapon attacks.

still doesn't apply to the OP's example. even though he's using 4 arms he's only holding 2 weapons and normal two weapon fighting feats covers that.

he'd need to be holding a 3rd or 4th weapon for the multiattack feat to be of any benefit.

unless you want to penalise each arm separately holding the same weapon and I have no clue how'd you'd go about doing that.

The Exchange

4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

To me, this...

'... The arm does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round, though the arm can wield a weapon and make attacks as part of the alchemist’s attack routine (using two-weapon fighting). The arm can manipulate or hold items as well as the alchemist’s original arms (for example, allowing the alchemist to use one hand to wield a weapon, another hand to hold a potion, and the third hand to throw a bomb)...'

... is the confusing bit. The arm gives no extra attacks or actions... but do off-hand attacks count as 'extra attacks or actions'? It says he can still 'wield' weapons with the extra arms, and can use two-weapon fighting (which I take to mean the combat option - which is referenced by the Multiweapon Fighting Feat in the Bestiary as well - rather than the specific Two-Weapon Fighting Feat). The example then goes on to show using two 'weapons' at once - one hand to wield a weapon, one hand to throw a bomb - even though throwing a bomb is its own standard action, so can't be used with two-weapon fighting anyway. The third hand in the example is just 'holding' a potion... all of which means the example tells us very little, as all the extra arm is doing in the example is, literally, just holding something (making it little more use than a belt pouch...).

I vote for a rules blog to clear up all multi-limbed confusion - be it vestigial arms, eidolon extra limbs, or blade boots on your feet!


I think its meant to illustrate that the arm can do anything a normal arm could do, its not a "dead" limb or limited in some way, it can wield a weapon, note that wielding a weapon doesn't mean using it, just being prepared to use it, hold a diverse array of objects that you could use next round & have at the ready, or prepare to throw a bomb on your next action without pulling it out.

The Exchange

Well... 'pulling out' a bomb is part and parcel of the standard action to create and throw it, so that gains you nothing. And the whole 'wielding is being prepared to use a weapon' becomes a little sticky when you look a little closer at it... The arm grants zero extra attacks or actions... except, perhaps, AoO when appropriate? Surely any situation where you have two arms 'in use' and are still hacking at things with the sword in your third arm is an 'extra' attack or action over and above what you could normally do?

I think the intent is that the vestigial arms don't grant any extra attacks in the manner extra natural attacks do (e.g. two claws and a tail slap allows you three attacks in a full-attack action, no matter your BAB). The questions start to pop up when you look at stuff like AoO, off-hand attacks, and the OP's using all-four arms to attack, but only using two weapons.

If, for example, you have an alchemist with two vestigial arms who's 'wielding' a dagger in each of his four hands, and the guy declares he's hacking at his opponent with all of them, how do you rule? Sorry - two of your arms just stop working, for some mystical reason? Or do you go to the off-hand attack rules? Or something different completely?


well, you could argue the "You don't understand how to effectively use your other 2 arms to hit with the daggers" reasoning, which in theory makes sense...if I randomly grew 2 more arms...I'd likely not know how to use them...but then again that's where Multi-weapon Fighting comes in.

The Exchange

Quote:
well, you could argue the "You don't understand how to effectively use your other 2 arms to hit with the daggers" reasoning, which in theory makes sense...if I randomly grew 2 more arms...I'd likely not know how to use them...

Even after having them for 17 levels? It's a bit of an all or nothing ruling, and would only seem to make sense at all when the discovery was first taken.

Quote:
... but then again that's where Multi-weapon Fighting comes in.

Or is it? That's one of the many questions which vestigial arms brings up.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I would love to hear something about this. I would like to know about combining this discovery with fast bombs and multiweapon fighting. The intent of this seems unclear as well. I am confused about not only the RAW, but the RAI as well.


To avoid some of the questions, you could use a two-handed weapon and a shield while still keeping a hand open for extract/mutagen/bomb use.

Shadow Lodge

My impression is the vestigial arms are not meant to be fully functioning extra arms. The name "Vestigial Arms", and the fact that it explicitly says you don't get any extra attacks all makes me think it's meant to be a helping hand more than a fully functioning extra set of limbs. I was thinking it might be interesting to use it with feral mutagen to carry a buckler and a potion or extract while going nuts with your natural attacks but the second arm would be a bit less useful then.

That said... it's not entirely clear, it definitely leaves a bit to the imagination which is why I've kind of kept clear of saying anything one way or the other about it.

Shadow Lodge

It seems strange to me that they would specifically mention Two-Weapon-Fighting if the intent is for it to work with Multi-Weapon Fighting.

Dark Archive

I'd say the best use of the feat is to wield a two-handed weapon and a shield. In my opinion, there's little benefit in speculating what the intent of this discovery was.
As written, the character does qualify for Multiweapon Fighting, but he gains little benefit apart from needing less Dexterity than a normal TWF character would need. It also allows to use feral mutagen at the same time as a two-handed weapon without resorting to footclaws.
Considering weapons like armor spikes and barbazu beards, the option to use TWF with a two-handed weapon and a light/one-handed weapon isn't that spectacular. While you could TWF with two two-handed weapons, you'd still only get 1.5 strength modifier on one of them since the other one would be considered an off-hand weapon.

Shadow Lodge

Jadeite wrote:
I'd say the best use of the feat is to wield a two-handed weapon and a shield. In my opinion, there's little benefit in speculating what the intent of this discovery was.

There is always a benefit to in trying to walk in the developers shoes. Even if it means you realize that you disagree with them and want to run things your own way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PFSRD wrote:
The arm does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round, though the arm can wield a weapon and make attacks as part of the alchemist’s attack routine (using two-weapon fighting).

emphasis mine

The key is that the arm itself, just by merely existing, does not give extra attacks or actions. A normal two-armed PC, still only gets one attack/round at 1st, and only gets a move, standard and swift action.

So, as stated, the arm does not give extra attacks or actions.

TWF and Natural weapons, however, do give extra attacks as long as you have enough limbs to use them.

A two-armed man has one attack unless he can TWF or has natural attacks, so a 4-armed man also only gets one attack unless he has TWF, Multi-weapon fighting, or natural weapons.

On a side note, with four arms and feral mutagen, you can use a two-handed weapon in two of them, and still use your claw/claw/bite with the rest at a -5 (the natural attacks become secondaries when using weapons). If you take multiattack it drops to -2.

Dark Archive

Aardvark Barbarian wrote:
A two-armed man has one attack unless he can TWF or has natural attacks, so a 4-armed man also only gets one attack unless he has TWF, Multi-weapon fighting, or natural weapons.

Any character can TWF. The feat merely reduces the penalties. Even with armor spikes, a barbazu beard and two kukris, a first level character woudl still be limited to two attacks. Why should extra arms that specifically say that they don't grant extra attacks change this?


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

I agree with Jadeite's assertion that TWF can only grant the PC one extra attack regardless of how many arms he or she has. This normally wouldn't be the case for creatures with more than two arms. That's likely why the discovery contains the limiting language about "extra" attacks.

Being able to hold an extra item such as a shield and still have two hands free is a pretty cool ability. Gaining extra attacks seems to be going overboard to me, especially if those extra attacks could be used with Fast Bombs.


Here's another question, though: could an alchemist use his vestigial arms for two-weapon fighting (which seems to be allowed in the description) and then use his regular arms for claw attacks?

I actually find the tentacle discovery even more vaguely written: you don't get any extra attacks, but you get a new natural weapon attack. So does it have to replace an existing natural weapon attack?


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
Jadeite wrote:
Aardvark Barbarian wrote:
A two-armed man has one attack unless he can TWF or has natural attacks, so a 4-armed man also only gets one attack unless he has TWF, Multi-weapon fighting, or natural weapons.
Any character can TWF. The feat merely reduces the penalties. Even with armor spikes, a barbazu beard and two kukris, a first level character woudl still be limited to two attacks. Why should extra arms that specifically say that they don't grant extra attacks change this?

True, I misrepresented the feats. TWF feat doesn't give you extra attacks. Fighting with two weapons does.

PFCRB pg. 202 wrote:
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.

and

PFCRB pg. 182 wrote:
You do not receive additional natural attacks for a high base attack bonus. Instead, you receive additional attack rolls for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack (as noted by the race or ability that grants the attack).

couple that with the line in vestigial arm itself that specifically says

PFSRD wrote:
though the arm can wield a weapon and make attacks as part of the alchemist’s attack routine.

Since it says you can wield a weapon AND make attacks, means that the arm is fully functional. By putting a weapon in it, along with your other hands means that, altough you suffer a crazy penalty, you get an extra attack (via fighting with multiple weapons, as multi limbed creatures do as well with penalty without the feat).

Also, by having a limb that is CAPABLE of making an attack, it meets the prerequisite for additional natural attacks. As it says "additional attacks for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack".

What the vestigial limb means is that you do not get extra attacks JUST by having an extra limb. If you use that limb with a weapon in it, or have natural attacks, then it functions like a normal arm, BUT the arm all by itself does NOT grant extra attacks. The extra weapon with penalties, and the limb capable of making an attack combined with natural attacks DOES provide the extra attacks.

That was the point I was trying to make before. The limb itself, NO. The limb combined with weapons or natural, YES.


hogarth wrote:

Here's another question, though: could an alchemist use his vestigial arms for two-weapon fighting (which seems to be allowed in the description) and then use his regular arms for claw attacks?

I actually find the tentacle discovery even more vaguely written: you don't get any extra attacks, but you get a new natural weapon attack. So does it have to replace an existing natural weapon attack?

By the rules of natural attacks (pg 182), when you wield a weapon, your natural attacks become secondary (-5 to hit), AND you suffer Two-weapon penalties.

So, say 2 short swords/claw/claw/bite, would be -4/-8/-13/-13/-13.
TWF, no feat, all light off-hands (natural attacks are light), natural attacks secondary.

With TWF, -2/-2/-7/-7/-7. TWF, all light off-hands (natural attacks are light), natural attacks secondary.

With TWF, and Multi-attack feats, -2/-2/-4/-4/-4. TWF, Multi-attack, all light off-hands (natural attacks are light), natural attacks secondary (-2 instead of -5 from feat).

EDIT: in addition all the natural attacks add only 1/2 Str mod to damage.

Dark Archive

Aardvark Barbarian wrote:


True, I misrepresented the feats. TWF feat doesn't give you extra attacks. Fighting with two weapons does.

Yes. But you can't attack with more than two weapons, no matter how many you hold

Quote:

Since it says you can wield a weapon AND make attacks, means that the arm is fully functional. By putting a weapon in it, along with your other hands means that, altough you suffer a crazy penalty, you get an extra attack (via fighting with multiple weapons, as multi limbed creatures do as well with penalty without the feat).

Also, by having a limb that is CAPABLE of making an attack, it meets the prerequisite for additional natural attacks. As it says "additional attacks for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack".

What the vestigial limb means is that you do not get extra attacks JUST by having an extra limb. If you use that limb with a weapon in it, or have natural attacks, then it functions like a normal arm, BUT the arm all by itself does NOT grant extra attacks. The extra weapon with penalties, and the limb capable of making an attack combined with natural attacks DOES provide the extra attacks.

That was the point I was trying to make before. The limb itself, NO. The limb combined with weapons or natural, YES.

No. A limb with a weapon does not grant you an extra attack. A character with a greatsword and armor spikes would have two attacks. A character with two kukris would have two attacks. And a character with two kukris, armor spikes, a barbazu beard and two blade boots would have two attacks as well, although he'd be free to chose which weapon to use for his off-hand attack.

Blade Boot wrote:


You can use a blade boot as an off-hand weapon.
Barbazu Beard wrote:

A barbazu beard can be used as an off-hand weapon that requires no hands to use; thus, a warrior could combine use of a barbazu beared with a two-handed weapon.

Attacking with a barbazu beard provokes an attack of opportunity. Because it is so close to the wearer's face, using a barbazu beard against creatures harmful to touch (such as fire elementals and acidic oozes) has the same risks as using a natural weapon or unarmed strike against these creatures.

Spiked Armor wrote:
You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case.

Even without extra arms, a character could wield six melee weapons. Without arms, he could wield four melee weapons. In both cases he would be able to attack with two weapons.


Aardvark Barbarian wrote:
hogarth wrote:


I actually find the tentacle discovery even more vaguely written: you don't get any extra attacks, but you get a new natural weapon attack. So does it have to replace an existing natural weapon attack?
By the rules of natural attacks (pg 182), when you wield a weapon, your natural attacks become secondary (-5 to hit), AND you suffer Two-weapon penalties. [etc.]

(a) There are actually two contradicting sets of rules as to how natural attacks and manufacture weapon attacks interact; the other set is on pg. 302 of the Bestiary. The Paizo folks have indicated that the Bestiary rules are correct. At any rate, I'm familiar with the rules governing mixing weapon and natural attacks, but it's unclear why you're quoting them in this context.

(b) You didn't directly answer my question, but I take it you don't think the tentacle attack has to replace an existing natural weapon attack. But wouldn't that make it an "extra attack"?

Shadow Lodge

Until now my feeling is the tentacle was meant to be treated as a secondary natural attack and the no extra attacks comment referred to extra attacks with manufactured weapons.

Re-reading it I think you are right though, it appears the tentacle is more restrictive than a normal secondary natural weapon. As much as that makes me cringe (because I have a character who uses it and loves that extra attack) I think you are right. That extra attack was a bit over the top to be honest.

There is also the question of whether to use the Grab ability from the Bestiary "Unless otherwise noted, grab works only against opponents at least one size category smaller than the creature." which is referenced in the Discovery, or the more permissive updated Grab special ability from Bestiary II. I think Bestiary II is meant to supersede the original version.

Shadow Lodge

hogarth wrote:
Here's another question, though: could an alchemist use his vestigial arms for two-weapon fighting (which seems to be allowed in the description) and then use his regular arms for claw attacks?

I'm not sure but I don't think it's as great as it sounds. Turning your three feral attacks into secondary attacks is a mistake, I haven't run the numbers but I think just using power attack with the three natural attacks is a better bet. Then you can use the 2-3 feats you save from TWF for more interesting things like wings.

I'm curious on your take on the wings evolution. It's an Ex that's limited to minutes per day. To me it looks like there is no action to fire them up, you just start using them. That puts it a bit above most of the other flying abilities which are Supernaturals or Spell-likes and require an action to activate.

The Exchange

Ogre wrote:
I'm curious on your take on the wings evolution. It's an Ex that's limited to minutes per day. To me it looks like there is no action to fire them up, you just start using them. That puts it a bit above most of the other flying abilities which are Supernaturals or Spell-likes and require an action to activate.

It looks like the wings in this case are physical, permanent, additions to the Alchemist's body - the time limit to their use is just how long you can fly in a day before they're knackered.

Dark Archive

ProfPotts wrote:
Ogre wrote:
I'm curious on your take on the wings evolution. It's an Ex that's limited to minutes per day. To me it looks like there is no action to fire them up, you just start using them. That puts it a bit above most of the other flying abilities which are Supernaturals or Spell-likes and require an action to activate.
It looks like the wings in this case are physical, permanent, additions to the Alchemist's body - the time limit to their use is just how long you can fly in a day before they're knackered.

Resurrecting this due to all the talking about natural weapons these days.

If Prof Potts is right and they are permanent additions to the character, and since Wings has an entry in the Beastiary 2 as secondary Natural weapons.
Does this feat then give you an additional natural attack ?

By SKR's recent post:

SKR wrote:


So, short answer: if something gives you a natural attack, it gives you a natural attack (whether that's primary or secondary is built into the attack, just as a claw or bite is always primary and a tentacle or hoof is always secondary), and your chosen attack sequence may change whether you use your full BAB or use the –5 for it being in addition to manufactured weapons or other primary attacks.

It would seem to indicate that Ogre was right on his initial presentation of the Tentacle Discovery (making it gobs better then Vestigial Arm), and that Wings should give you an additional Natural Attack every round.


The discovery gives you extra an arm (or two if you take discovery again) but not the ability to be extra co-ordinated with all your limbs.

Advantage of this extra arm is ability to hold an additional item. So you don't to disarm yourself to throw a bomb, drink a potion, etc. In a way you can kinda store up actions so you don't have to use a move action to pull out that one item and provoke an attack of opportunity during an intense combat moment.

Shadow Lodge

Mathwei ap Niall wrote:
It would seem to indicate that Ogre was right on his initial presentation of the Tentacle Discovery (making it gobs better then Vestigial Arm), and that Wings should give you an additional Natural Attack every round.

I'm still a bit confused on tentacles but I think in light of Sean's comments it's easiest to just treat them as a secondary natural weapon and be done with it.

The presence of wings does not automatically imply there is a wing buffet attack. Wing buffet attacks are uncommon among fliers, the majority of creatures with wings do NOT have a wing buffet attack.

Contributor

9 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 13 people marked this as a favorite.

The intent is that you have an extra arm for holding stuff, not to turn you into a double-greatsword-wielding maniac.

The vestigial limb is also not giving you any extra actions. For example, a normal character can use twf to attack with a manufactured weapon in one hand and one unarmed strike, whether that's a punch, kick, or headbutt. He doesn't get multiple extra unarmed strikes per round just because he has an arm, two legs, and a head free. Therefore, you don't get any extra attacks just because you now have a vestigial arm, or two vestigial arms. You're still limited by the normal limitations of the attack sequence.

And no, having the wings discovery doesn't mean you automatically get an extra wing attack. Most creatures that naturally have wings don't get wing attacks; the rules for wing attacks in the Bestiary are mainly there so you know if wings are primary or secondary, and how much damage they should do if you're building your own monster. If, for example, your alchemist wanted to attack with a wing *instead* of an unarmed strike, you'd know how it would function (secondary, bludgeoning, probably 1d4 for a Medium creature). But the wing attack wouldn't be in *addition* to the alchemist's normal attack routine, it would take the place of one of the alchemist's other attacks that round.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:

The intent is that you have an extra arm for holding stuff, not to turn you into a double-greatsword-wielding maniac.

The vestigial limb is also not giving you any extra actions. For example, a normal character can use twf to attack with a manufactured weapon in one hand and one unarmed strike, whether that's a punch, kick, or headbutt. He doesn't get multiple extra unarmed strikes per round just because he has an arm, two legs, and a head free. Therefore, you don't get any extra attacks just because you now have a vestigial arm, or two vestigial arms. You're still limited by the normal limitations of the attack sequence.

And no, having the wings discovery doesn't mean you automatically get an extra wing attack. Most creatures that naturally have wings don't get wing attacks; the rules for wing attacks in the Bestiary are mainly there so you know if wings are primary or secondary, and how much damage they should do if you're building your own monster. If, for example, your alchemist wanted to attack with a wing *instead* of an unarmed strike, you'd know how it would function (secondary, bludgeoning, probably 1d4 for a Medium creature). But the wing attack wouldn't be in *addition* to the alchemist's normal attack routine, it would take the place of one of the alchemist's other attacks that round.

But it would be legal to attack with a two-handed weapon, with a one handed weapon and use a shield, right? I ask because I have an alchemist in my kingmaker group who does that.

Shadow Lodge Dedicated Voter 2014

Quote:
The intent is that you have an extra arm for holding stuff, not to turn you into a double-greatsword-wielding maniac.

I had an idea this was the intent it just doesn't come across very well in the raw. 2 great sword attacks is not any MORE attacks than Than 2 long sword attacks (it just hurts more)

I'm curious as to what usage SHOULD be legal for the vestigal arm.

Assist in making an attack with a two handed weapon (your answer indicated no)

Use a shield.

DRAW a potion or weapon (non extra action clause would seem to indicate no)

Drink a potion (non extra action clause would seem to indicate no)

Climb while you fight with two hands

Help load a weapon (the sling example above)

Close a door (oddly enough the extra action clause would seem to indicate no)

The only use i can see is holding the damsel in distress while you're fighting, or walking around the dungeon with a particular potion or wand to save you the occasional move action of drawing it. Merely holding most items doesn't do much. Its an awesome and creative ability (thank you for including it, as well as most of ultimate magic) but its very creativity is going to give DM's headaches.

Contributor

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jadeite wrote:
But it would be legal to attack with a two-handed weapon, with a one handed weapon and use a shield, right? I ask because I have an alchemist in my kingmaker group who does that.

If you mean "use two hands on one weapon, and use the other arm for a shield," then yes. Though I wasn't really intending for people to do that, either. :p

Shadow Lodge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
The intent is that you have an extra arm for holding stuff, not to turn you into a double-greatsword-wielding maniac.

I had an idea this was the intent it just doesn't come across very well in the raw. 2 great sword attacks is not any MORE attacks than Than 2 long sword attacks (it just hurts more)

I'm curious as to what usage SHOULD be legal for the vestigal arm.

I think the name of the discovery is a pretty good indicator of what they had in mind:

Vestigial: Occurring or persisting as a rudimentary or degenerate structure.

So a degenerate arm, likely smaller and far less muscular than the main arm. Capable of basic tasks akin to an unseen servant.

Dark Archive

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

The intent is that you have an extra arm for holding stuff, not to turn you into a double-greatsword-wielding maniac.

The vestigial limb is also not giving you any extra actions. For example, a normal character can use twf to attack with a manufactured weapon in one hand and one unarmed strike, whether that's a punch, kick, or headbutt. He doesn't get multiple extra unarmed strikes per round just because he has an arm, two legs, and a head free. Therefore, you don't get any extra attacks just because you now have a vestigial arm, or two vestigial arms. You're still limited by the normal limitations of the attack sequence.

And no, having the wings discovery doesn't mean you automatically get an extra wing attack. Most creatures that naturally have wings don't get wing attacks; the rules for wing attacks in the Bestiary are mainly there so you know if wings are primary or secondary, and how much damage they should do if you're building your own monster. If, for example, your alchemist wanted to attack with a wing *instead* of an unarmed strike, you'd know how it would function (secondary, bludgeoning, probably 1d4 for a Medium creature). But the wing attack wouldn't be in *addition* to the alchemist's normal attack routine, it would take the place of one of the alchemist's other attacks that round.

I can understand the Vestigial Limb not giving you an additional attack, makes perfect sense.

However since Tentacle is flagged as a natural weapon those are in addition to the regular attacks you get as normal, per your ruling on quoted above. So an alchemist(let's say 8th level) who took this discovery twice would get his regular attacks because of his BaB at +6/+1 plus 2 natural attacks from the tentacles at a -5 (or -2 if he has multi-attack), right?

Now since you say because you have wings doesn't give you an additional attack it just takes the place one of your normal attacks (not natural attacks) so the above Alchemist would then be able to go:

Wing buffet = +1 or +4 with Multi-Attack
Unarmed strike = +1
Tentacle 1 = +1 or +4 with Multi-Attack
Tentacle 2 = +1 or +4 with Multi-Attack

Have I misunderstood how the normal attacks and iterative attacks mix?

Shadow Lodge

Alchemists cannot take tentacles more than once.

"Unless otherwise noted, an alchemist cannot select an individual discovery more than once"

Dark Archive

0gre wrote:

Alchemists cannot take tentacles more than once.

"Unless otherwise noted, an alchemist cannot select an individual discovery more than once"

Derp, I mixed it up with Vestigial Arm which can be taken twice.

Inthat case replace the extra tentacle with... A bite from Razortusk or Toothy.

Would the progression still look the same?

Contributor

3 people marked this as a favorite.

What 0gre said, and note that the tentacle discovery specifically calls out that it doesn't give you any extra attacks. So, like the wings, you can use it in place of one of your other attacks (the ability description is calling out that you can attack with it because it also has the grab ability, which you wouldn't otherwise know).

Again, we could really use a hard look at the language in the C.R. and establish a format for these sorts of things to follow.

Dark Archive

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

What 0gre said, and note that the tentacle discovery specifically calls out that it doesn't give you any extra attacks. So, like the wings, you can use it in place of one of your other attacks (the ability description is calling out that you can attack with it because it also has the grab ability, which you wouldn't otherwise know).

Again, we could really use a hard look at the language in the C.R. and establish a format for these sorts of things to follow.

Ahh.. that answers my question.

Your previous post seemed to indicate that something that gives you a natural attack gives you the attack regardless of the text in the description.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

A format for these sorts of things would really be appreciated.
I'm simple and confuse easily. :P

Contributor

I think something like "you gain X as an additional natural attack" vs. "you may use X as a natural attack in place of an existing manufactured weapon attack or unarmed strike" would help.

1 to 50 of 388 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Alchemist "Vestigial Arm" discovery question All Messageboards

©2002–2014 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.