| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Multi-armed characters have no clear ruling in pathfinder and need to be errata'd.
Occasionally in pathfinder, we find situations where rules were imported incomplete from 3.5 due to odd placement or wording in the original game (often initially needing an FAQ!). However, given the nature of pathfinder as an extension of 3.5, in the absence of a ruling from paizo I think it would be fair for us to compare existing rules from 3.5.
In this case, there is an existing, multi-armed character in 3.5: the Thri-kreen. Taken directly from the character creation text:
"For example, a thri-kreen
ranger with the Multiweapon Fighting feat who is armed
with three short swords could attack with all three swords
at a –2 penalty (the normal penalty for fighting with mul-
tiple weapons while using light weapons in its off hands)
and also make a bite attack at a –5 penalty."
We can clearly see that the intention is to allow for multiarmed characters wielding multiple weapons to take an extra attack for each off-hand weapon. I should note that neither the two-weapon fighting nor multiweapon fighting feats have been reworded during the translation to pathfinder.
|
Multiple Limbs: Lesser Thri-Kreens have four arms, though they begin off much weaker than a normal thri-kreen. At 1 HD, they have two primary arms and two secondary, weaker arms which cannot be used to attack but may carry objects and make somatic components. At 3 HD, these smaller lower arms become strong enough to use weapons, but only those one size smaller than the lesser thri-kreen. At 6 HD, they're arms improve and become as strong as their primary arms. They may now use weapons sized normal for their size.
Natural Attacks: Lesser Thri-Kreens have two primary claw attacks which deal 1d4 points of damage and a secondary bite which deals 1d4 damage. At 3 HD, their lower arms may deal two additional secondary claw attacks at 1d3 damage. When the lesser thri-kreen reaches 6 HD, the lower claws become primary attacks as well and deal the normal 1d4 points of damage, leaving the lesser thri-kreen with four primary claws and one secondary bite.
And again we see that they have natural attacks = to their ability to attack with weapons, we also see that their entry explicitly states their additional attacks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lesser Thri-kreen are not Thri-kreen. The Multiple limbs entry in Thri-kreen entry is only:
"Thri-kreen have four arms, and thus can
take the Multiweapon Fighting feat (page 304 of the Monster
Manual) instead of the Two-Weapon Fighting feat. Thri-kreen
can also take the Multiattack feat. (These are not bonus feats.)"
Yes a Thri-kreen has natural attacks... but your logic no longer holds here. As written:
"Natural Attacks: Thri-kreen can attack with four claws and
a bite. The claws deal 1d4 points of damage, and the bite is
a secondary attack that also deals 1d4 points of damage. A
thri-kreen can attack with a weapon (or multiple weapons)
at its normal attack bonus, and make either a bite or claw
attack as a secondary attack."
Thus the Thri-kreen is not giving up natural attacks to make weapon attacks: as in the above example, the Thri-kreen does not have a claw attack with its fourth hand to "give up". If armed with a single weapon, the Thri-kreen could only make a single claw attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where does it explicitly state it can get extra attacks?
"Thri-kreen have four arms, and thus can
take the Multiweapon Fighting feat (page 304 of the Monster
Manual) instead of the Two-Weapon Fighting feat. Thri-kreen
can also take the Multiattack feat. (These are not bonus feats.)"
Nowhere in here does it state extra attacks.
lantzkev, you're devolving into 'no you' ad-hominem attacks. Address the discussion at hand please. Obviously without a proper paizo ruling this is open to interpretation - as stated in my initial post.
*edit*
Ah! I've found the problem. There IS a change in the multiweapon fighting feat to pathfinder. The descriptive text in the monster manual has been lost. Initially, the feat stated
"A creature with three or more hands can fight with a weapon in each hand. The creature can make one extra attack each round with each extra weapon."
And this text is missing or removed in the transition to Pathfinder. The rest of the feat is worded identically. So what does this mean for us? Well, it means that mine and other interpretations in the book are valid for 3.5, so you'll have to admit defeat there. However, until we get an FAQ on the matter in Pathfinder, there can be no consensus as the rules are missing. In this case I would argue that the loss is unintentional and that we should, given no alternatives, stick with the initial 3.5 ruling. Certainly, bestiary creatures as-written still follow the 3.5 rules. However, that is only my opinion: although they are nearly identical, I can't assume a 3.5 ruling is valid in Pathfinder. I can only argue that it would be logical.
Salindurthas...
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.)
I do not see how that phrase gives any explanation to the number of attacks anyone ever gets. It merely notes that all the off-hands take a -10 penalty but gives no mention to how many (if any!) you could attack with.
It is quite possible that the intention was that each off-hand gets an attack, but it is too vague to know that for sure.
-----
Re 3.5 example.
I think Blakmane's example from 3.5 is interesting. However, it makes very little sense. The quote "Natural attacks:..." specifically says that the multiple weapon attacks are made at its normal attack bonus, which contradicts the idea of off-hands, and even the MWF feat which notes penalties.
That seems to mean that without any feats a Thri-kreen could attack with four swords at "its normal attack bonus", which sounds crazy to me!
Although it seems to be a bit "all or nothing" (you trade all your primary natural attacks for the privilege to attack with more than one manufactured weapon) the extra attacks are only gained from forfeiting natural attacks. This is clear, as the quote given makes it very clear that you have to choose between 'multiple primary natural attacks' and 'multiple weapon attacks'. The link seems very strong when the only mention of making more weapon attacks is in the "Natural Attacks" entry.
See above Salin: in 3.5, multiweapon fighting clearly gives extra attacks for additional hands, regardless of natural attacks. So the 'natural attacks become normal attacks' interpretation no longer holds.
The problem lies in the fact that this rule has been omitted from Pathfinder. I would argue that this is an oversight given the lack of clarification and bestiary monster usage, but it is possible that Paizo intended to change these rules and simply forgot to include an alternative for the marilith etc.
At this point I think it comes down to the DM. We could ask for an FAQ, but I noticed that previous threads on this topic went unanswered :-(.
|
|
Ah! I've found the problem. There IS a change in the multiweapon fighting feat to pathfinder. The descriptive text in the monster manual has been lost. Initially, the feat stated
Again the problem with using a different system then the one being discussed...
(As an aside, I think you don't understand what an ad hominem, I've made no attack based on feelings or on your character I've only stated that you're not providing anything to strengthen your case, which is far from this martyred position you're attempting)
Ah, your extra 3.5 ruling ninja'd me, so I missed that. Still, the natural weapon text there specifically made you choose between "multiple natural attacks" or "one or more manufactured attacks". To take one was to forfeit the other.
So the text giving extra attacks to multi-armed creatures was removed in the transition to Pathfinder. Good to know. While it is possible this was an accident, it could easily be deliberate.
Had the rule remained, it would have been clear, but noting that it was removed only opens the possibility that they meant to remove it.
This makes arguing from 3.5 a bit hard.
As far as I've seen, the only explicit pathfinder examples of creatures getting more weapon attacks are those that have many natural attacks. This could be a coincidence, but as we are all aware the rules text is a bit light here so it is far from ridiculous to try to infer a rule from this.
Blakmane, the "change the rules and forgot to include alternatives" seems very plausible to me, actually.
Consider the following scenario:
1. They wanted player characters to not get so many attacks so easily, so they removed that phrase.
2. They simply copied the bestiary entries over without checking them with their new PC rules.
3. We get hella confused by all the extra attacks lying around.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah! I've found the problem. There IS a change in the multiweapon fighting feat to pathfinder. The descriptive text in the monster manual has been lost. Initially, the feat statedAgain the problem with using a different system then the one being discussed...
(As an aside, I think you don't understand what an ad hominem, I've made no attack based on feelings or on your character I've only stated that you're not providing anything to strengthen your case, which is far from this martyred position you're attempting)
"which is far from this martyred position you're attempting" alone I feel is structured in a way to undermine character. But you're right, it's hyprocritical of me to berate you for it. My apologies.
Anyways, as stated, 3.5 ISN'T pathfinder and so I can never claim a 3.5 ruling is valid in pathfinder. *However*, it is important to remember that Pathfinder is a 3.5 derivative and many rules were imported directly from 3.5, occasionally with errors of omission. Actually, a lot of these errors involve the bestiary. For example, improved natural attack and summon monster list FAQs. I'm arguing that a valid interpretation of this issue is that an error of omission has occured, and until the issue is resolved, players would be justified in assuming multi-weapon fighting works as it does in 3.5. I also accept that you could interpret this as an intentional change which nerfs multiarmed PCs (in that they only get one extra attack) --- although I challenge your claim that natural attacks and multi-weapon fighting are related somehow. Instead, I propose a simpler claim would be that, in this case, the marilith et al. have been constructed in error and need additional clarification or a rebuild to take into account changes in multiweapon fighting.
Without an FAQ there is no ultimate resolution, sadly.
|
|
yeah, I called you a martyr because claiming I was performing ad hominem attacks when I didn't is claiming to be a victim in this discussion in the goal of strengthening your position.
I fail to see how PCs getting only as many attacks as other PCs is a nerf. The fact that they can perform as many attacks as other PCs and can perform those with two handed weapons seems a pretty strong ability to me...
To claim as you are that many entries in the books are incorrect, and that a different game system has the "true" meaning and rules is just ridiculous.
Without an FAQ you can only a) house rule it however you want or b) go with what the rules allow, which is as I've been arguing.
players would be justified in assuming multi-weapon fighting works as it does in 3.5.
um no... the feat explicitly says what it does. Assuming it does more than it says IE the 3.5 version of it is silly. Your argument of omission in the case of rules that "didn't make it" could be considered, but you cannot make the case for feats/creatures/rules only being "partially" copied. A redaction or removal of text is deliberate, you cannot assume it an accidental thing with no purpose other than oversight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, your extra 3.5 ruling ninja'd me, so I missed that. Still, the natural weapon text there specifically made you choose between "multiple natural attacks" or "one or more manufactured attacks". To take one was to forfeit the other.
So the text giving extra attacks to multi-armed creatures was removed in the transition to Pathfinder. Good to know. While it is possible this was an accident, it could easily be deliberate.
Had the rule remained, it would have been clear, but noting that it was removed only opens the possibility that they meant to remove it.
This makes arguing from 3.5 a bit hard.As far as I've seen, the only explicit pathfinder examples of creatures getting more weapon attacks are those that have many natural attacks. This could be a coincidence, but as we are all aware the rules text is a bit light here so it is far from ridiculous to try to infer a rule from this.
Blakmane, the "change the rules and forgot to include alternatives" seems very plausible to me, actually.
Consider the following scenario:
1. They wanted player characters to not get so many attacks so easily, so they removed that phrase.
2. They simply copied the bestiary entries over without checking them with their new PC rules.
3. We get hella confused by all the extra attacks lying around.
At the time, there were no player characters capable of getting more than two arms anyway, so they probably didn't feel the need to clarify. The only thing the change would effect would be monsters... which they then imported without any changes.
So yes, I totally agree that your scenario is 100% possible. Without an official FAQ there is no way of knowing which one is a mistake: the feat or the monsters. I do think ruling that a 4 armed character cannot attack with a sword in each hand is a little counter-intuitive though. You'd make some players very unhappy if you came to that decision after giving them access to a 4-armed race in the first place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
yeah, I called you a martyr because claiming I was performing ad hominem attacks when I didn't is claiming to be a victim in this discussion in the goal of strengthening your position.
I fail to see how PCs getting only as many attacks as other PCs is a nerf. The fact that they can perform as many attacks as other PCs and can perform those with two handed weapons seems a pretty strong ability to me...
To claim as you are that many entries in the books are incorrect, and that a different game system has the "true" meaning and rules is just ridiculous.
Without an FAQ you can only a) house rule it however you want or b) go with what the rules allow, which is as I've been arguing.
players would be justified in assuming multi-weapon fighting works as it does in 3.5.um no... the feat explicitly says what it does. Assuming it does more than it says IE the 3.5 version of it is silly. Your argument of omission in the case of rules that "didn't make it" could be considered, but you cannot make the case for feats/creatures/rules only being "partially" copied. A redaction or removal of text is deliberate, you cannot assume it an accidental thing with no purpose other than oversight.
See improved natural attack omission, which was a 'partial' copy of the original text. This was then subsequently errata'd to be in line with the 3.5 ruling. So yes, there is a precedent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
and what omission is that?
That is indeed an error; you can't take Improved Natural Attack more than once per attack type, but you CAN take it multiple times per attack.According to this thread, there is a possible omission in the description of the Improved Natural Attack Feat on page 315.
The feat is missing a 'Special' entry in order to be taken multiple times for different kind of Natural Attacks (like, for example, Weapon Focus does). This feature was included in the 3.x version, but is amiss in the Pathfinder version.
Basically, as the rules are currently written, a creature could not take both Improved Natural Attack (Claws) and Improved Natural Attack (Bite), since the feat cannot be taken twice (by RAW).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another example of a partial omission (albeit with some rewording) is rapid shot:
3.5:
"Benefit: You can get one extra attack per round with a ranged weapon. The attack is at your highest base attack bonus, but each attack you make in that round (the extra one and the normal ones) takes a –2 penalty. You must use the full attack action to use this feat."
Pathfinder:
"Benefit: When making a full-attack action with a ranged weapon, you can fire one additional time this round. All of your attack rolls take a –2 penalty when using Rapid Shot."
The Pathfinder feat fails to mention that the attack is at the highest base attack bonus.. but that is the clear RAI and no alternative is given. Pathfinder NPC statblocks in official supplements built with this feat use the 3.5 ruling. This is a clear precedent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can make a number of attacks per round equal to the number of arms/appendages you have. For humans that's 2.
When taking more than one attack per turn, the Primary attack is at -6, all additional attacks are at -10.
Multi-weapon Fighting reduces these penalties. It is exactly like two-weapon fighting, but it is specifically for multi-limbed creatures.
The Merilth gets additional attacks for having a high BaB. Her Multiweapon fighting feat gives her secondary and tertiary attacks with each limb beyond the primary one.
The only difference between a Merilith's attack pattern and a high level two-weapon fighter's is that the Merilith has five sets of off-hand attacks instead of just one.
If you are being a RAW literalist, Multiweapon fighting, for characters that qualify for it, it clearly superior to two-weapon fighting. (because TWF says off-hand, while WMF says off-hands). If you feel like that is an unfair advantage toward multiarmed freaks, just make Two-weapon Fighting a Prerequisite to Multiweapon fighting.
You can make a number of attacks per round equal to the number of arms/appendages you have. For humans that's 2.
The problem is that it never actually states this in the rules. You have to make the argument above, that this is an unintentional rules omission similar to rapid shot etc and so should be treated similarly. But as discussed in this thread, this cannot be conclusively proven so it is up to DM fiat.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, the two weapon fighting rules in the combat chapter explain a creature (assumed to be core player character race) has one off hand and gets an attack with it in a full attack action at a penalty. The two weapon fighting feat merely reduces the penalty. The multiweapon fighting monster feat does exactly the same thing as the twf feat for creatures with more than one set of limbs. Pathfinder, like dnd 3.5 assumes a great deal of rules system mastery. Twf and mwf stem from the same mechanics in the core rules, namely the section about two weapon fighting.
The marilith has 6 hands. Thus it has one primary hand that gets 4 iteritive attacks from high bab. It's 5 remaining hands if armed with weapons can each take off hand attacks at the same penalty as a human wielding 2 weapons w/o any feats. Multi weapon fighting reduces the penalties of these attacks just like twf does for a human. That the marilith has slam attacks has nothing to do with her being able to use manufactured weapons. You're not going to see it spelled out in the crb as you're assumed to have a bit of systems mastery. The crb wasn't really written for brand new players of the game.
--School of Vrock
|
|
King of Vrock, you're assuming rules again like the rest here.
That the marilith has slam attacks has nothing to do with her being able to use manufactured weapons.
And again the same issue of how do you know? Every creature mentioned so far with multiple attacks from limbs all have a corresponding amount of natural attacks.
Lastly the argument here has nothing to actually do with the marilith and everything with the perception a PC can slap arms on and get multiple attacks. The point of this argument has nothing to do with the penalties associated with extra attacks, but the ability to get those extra attacks to begin with.
Two-weapon fighting only says you get an extra attack if you wield a second weapon in your offhand. MWF does not alter this text, all it says is that all your offhands are treated with less penalty. It does not say this creature can make additional attacks = the number of weapons it is wielding, treat these as offhand etc..."
If you have a firm grasp of the rules, this "rulemastery that's assumed" you'd know there's no rule that permits these extra attacks for PCs. (again the point of this discussion, not about monsters)
|
|
This natural weapon attacks number = Manufactured weapon attacks is false.
Rule quote that says contrary? Or supports the limbs = extra off hand attacks? No one is claiming it's true, what is being claimed is that it's as strongly correlated to extra attacks as having the limbs themselves. There's been no examples given yet of NPCs with multiple limbs and multiple weapon attacks that didn't also have the same number of natural attacks.
|
|
I'd go as far as to say it's a natural attack that is related to the limb holding the weapon, not just natural attacks = the limbs.
A bite couldn't be substituted for a weapon attack unless the mouth could wield the weapon...
Again though this is the "hypothetical super awesome extra attacks for limbs" rule that people are inferring rather than any actual rule.
|
Well, there is the Dwarven Boulder Helmet, Barbazu Beard, and the Monk can headbutt things.
So, bite equals extra attack with manufactured weapon attack that uses the head?
This four armed PC could easily gain four claw attacks.
Does he need to get them first prior to being able to attack with a weapon in each hand?
Does a PC with a the Tail Terror feat get an extra attack with Kobold Tail attachment?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Merilith is not using unique rules. It's just the mathematical progression of a monster with multiple natural attacks and multiple sets of weapon-wielding limbs. They mix their Natural attacks with their Weapon attacks.
Lets take an easier example.
A centaur has two hands and four hooves. Like a normal horse, it could strike with it's front hooves, but it couldn't carry weapons with them.
In theory it could make two attacks with manufactured weapons and two with natural attacks (it's front hooves) for a total of four attacks.
If it does, it will be incurring Two Weapon fighting penalties (-2 if you have TWF), and penalties from using Natural attacks at the end of an attack sequence (-5 for each natural attack in addiction to the penalties from having used MWF for a total of -7)
So, the centaur's attack sequence would be-
Primary weapon attack, BaB -2
Secondary weapon attack, BaB -2
Secondary Natural Attack -7
Secondary Natural Attack -7
Here's the trick- Even though Centaurs have extra limbs they still use TWF and not MWF because they only have two limbs capable of grasping weapons.
To minimize the penalty from their additional Natural attacks they would want to pick up Multiattack
|
|
Well, there is the Dwarven Boulder Helmet, Barbazu Beard, and the Monk can headbutt things.
So, bite equals extra attack with manufactured weapon attack that uses the head?
This four armed PC could easily gain four claw attacks.
Does he need to get them first prior to being able to attack with a weapon in each hand?
Does a PC with a the Tail Terror feat get an extra attack with Kobold Tail attachment?
I knew this is where you were going to try and go with this lol, and in your above example all of these things do not grant extra attacks, they only let you replace an attack you could normally make with that attack.
You've run out of "implied" rules to argue, so now you attempt to set up a situation you know doesn't work and argue that I'm arguing for it going contrary to the rules. Great job... In the above example, can a mouth wield the helmet?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Two-weapon fighting only says you get an extra attack if you wield a second weapon in your offhand. MWF does not alter this text, all it says is that all your offhands are treated with less penalty. It does not say this creature can make additional attacks = the number of weapons it is wielding, treat these as offhand etc..."
You are mistaking some terms.
Offhand refers specifically to weapon or weapon-like attacks (Unarmed Strikes are included here, but Natural attacks are not)
Natural Attacks are not weapon-like attacks. They use a separate (but compatible) set of attack rules.
Multi Weapon Fighting does not include Natural Attacks in it's phrasing. The centaur in the above example could not use it's hooves as Offhand attacks because they are Natural Weapons.
The best way of thinking about it is to treat Natural attacks as a separate category. Creatures that have them can just tack them on to a normal attack sequence at a -5 penalty, without effecting their Weapon attack sequence at all.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, it seems some want to tie natural attacks with manufactured attacks in some kind of combination that one restricts/allows the other.
You know, because they the same thing. An answer to "those rules don't exist, because I say so, but these rules I just made up exist".
Also, when the players run monsters, they have completely different rules, because I said so.
Also, this is RAW, because I say it is RAW, and your examples are meaningless, because I will continue to point out my examples, because they are the only ones that count.
Also, if you disagree with me, you have no grasp of the rules, and are just ignorant, and blinded by your need to "munchkin".
I have got it all, right?
|
|
You're really going out on a stretch there.
The gist of this argument comes down to there are no rules that a PC can use or quote that enable them to get additional offhand attacks beyond what two weapon fighting provides, regardless of the number of limbs they have
All this conversation around "inferred" rules that are being used to "prove" your point is relatively moot. The point of showing these natural attacks exist next to the same beasts that have these multiple off hand attacks, is not in a serious claim that it's how it works, it's that it's just a valid "inferred" rule as the ones you're trying to advocate.
Everything available to a PC strongly curtails the ability to make extra attacks with weapons.
I'll give the examples I can think
Vestigial Arm (Ex):...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).
Limbs (Ex): An eidolon grows an additional pair of limbs...The eidolon does not gain any additional natural attacks for an additional pair of arms,
Tailblade:...If used as part of a full attack action, attacks with a tailblade are considered secondary attacks(it natural attack, not a weapon wielded)Monks who have "weapons everywhere" are still limited to the standard two weapon fighting attack routine.
A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet.
Since a monk is wielding 8 weapons, I guess rather than flurry where he's restricted he should go with two-weapon fighting and just suck up the penalties (or even splash two levels of alchemist so he has a third arm and can qualify for multiweapon fighting... or just stay pure monk and suck up the penalties, or maybe go unarmed fighter and splash 1 lvl of monk...)
Regardless of your inferred rules, the rules have a strong tendency to attempt to keep players from unreasonably adding in attacks as they feel like it. It would appear to most people reading that the intent of the designers is to keep attacks beyond TWF out of the hands of player characters and in the hands of NPCs exclusively. The only thing contrary to this is how manufactured weapons and natural weapons interact, which I also believe to be an oversight, but that's an opinion that's not based on rules but what I perceive as intent.
lantzkev, how then do you interpret the rules for rapid shot? Why is the RAI interpretation of this feat any different to your RAI interpretation of MWF? Both are missing vital text that explains how they work.
|
|
I'm not sure what you're asking on this one...
Rapid Shot (Combat)
You can make an additional ranged attack.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Point-Blank Shot.
Benefit: When making a full-attack action with a ranged weapon, you can fire one additional time this round. All of your attack rolls take a –2 penalty when using Rapid Shot.
RAW you make an additional attack and all your attacks when you do this are at -2... RAI, you make an additional attack and all your attacks when you do this are at -2...
I still don't get where you're getting "A Monk has 8 weapons" from. An Unarmed Strike is one weapon.
And did you ever stop and think, maybe, that the reason that restrictive text is there is because it's going against the general rule? Otherwise why is it needed?
Guys, why are you arguing against lantzkev? He's making a mountain out of a molehill for nothing.
lantzkev, stop it. You're just being contrarian and sutbborn now. If you got multiple limbs capable of wielding multiple weapons then you can make attacks with each limb that can wield a weapon. So if you had 1000 tentacles capable of wielding daggers then you get 1 primary attack and 999 off-hand attacks. There doesn't need to be a super detailed ruling for it. Two-weapon fighting rules, the feat multi-weapon fighting, and the very broad and ambiguous definition of an off-hand attack are more than enough to cover this.
It's been done this way for about a decade now in one form or another. There's little argument about this other than confusion on how it would work. I've never seen anyone argue this the way you do. The only big thing multi-armed players should worry about is that there's no Improved Multi-Weapon Fighting and Greater Multi-Weapon Fighting. Most understanding groups would just house rule those feats in anyway.
Monks who have "weapons everywhere" are still limited to the standard two weapon fighting attack routine.A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet.Since a monk is wielding 8 weapons, I guess rather than flurry where he's restricted he should go with two-weapon fighting and just suck up the penalties (or even splash two levels of alchemist so he has a third arm and can qualify for multiweapon fighting... or just stay pure monk and suck up the penalties, or maybe go unarmed fighter and splash 1 lvl of monk...)
Unarmed Strikes have always been treated as Double weapons in PF and 3.5.
Otherwise, why would there be Barbarian rage powers letting you TWF (with just unarmed)? It doesn't say as an exception.So please leave unarmed strikes out this discussion, it just confuses the issue about limbs.
|
|
What I said were that if you're inferring rules based on bestiary entries, you can come up with more conclusions that were given, not that they didn't follow rules, but they do not have to follow rules and that rules for extra attacks per limb ARE NOT AVAILABLE. That if you go based off the number of weapons wielded a monk has "8." Lastly, MWF does in fact do several things even given my "strict" interpretation of things, it functions identical to TWF (replaces it) and enables you to do things like wield two two handed weapons without racking up a -10 penalty on the second attack in addition to the point that if you wanted to through a high BAB having 3+ attacks, you could have four different one handers hit a target. These of course aren't super zomg I have a lvl 1 pc with 5 attacks awesome, but thems the breaks.
You can ignore these points though and make them sound different then they are, that's fine. You and several others have tried to make this into an argument not about rules, but about what they feel the rules should be. That kind of conversation belongs somewhere other than the "rules questions" forum.
It's been amply demonstrated that there is no rule for the issue at hand, and that the inferred rules can easily be taken several ways. As it stands aside from a custom built race, there is no option for PCs to get multiple arms that does not come expressly prohibiting extra attacks from weapons (the closest exception is the tailwhip which provides a natural attack to add into a full attack routine)
You're more than welcome to go debate in the house rule/homebrew rule forum, but it has no place here.
This forum is for rules and not speculation on rules.
|
|
Way to distort "do not have to follow rules" with your claim that I'm saying "they don't follow rules"
If the lack of anyone quoting a rule is not ample demonstration after 140posts that there is no rule that support the position being debated, there is no ability to even debate this subject with you.
Your emphasis on "no offhand" is misplaced in your debate. Offhand describes the quality of an attack, when you strike with unarmed attacks since all are primary attacks, not offhand or secondary you use your full str mod is all that that "no offhand" is referring to.
Yes and we are interpreting the RAI of this rule,
And what rule are you judging the RAI on? the one that allows you to get multiple attacks for multiple limbs that no one has yet to quote?
Or the feat that only stats all your offhands get a reduced penalty for attacks and replaces two-weapon fighting, but makes no allowance for additional attacks.
Even the two-weapon fighting feat doesn't give you additional attacks or allow for them, it modifies an existing rule and reduces the penalty for using that rule.
Actually think you made a mistake here because the non custom built race that sparked this discussion has multiple arms and doesn't expressly prohibit extra attacks from weapons. Your entire argument was that there was no rule that expressly allows extra attacks from extra limbs. But if you want to change your argument here and say if you have multiple arms that don't expressly prohibit extra attacks then you are allowed to have them then Huzzah! We have come to a conclusion!
No I believe the question was:
If a monk is of an ARG race with 4 arms (say shes 1st level) and has the multiweapon feat (assuming she needs it) does she get any benefit?
Which is to say the custom race generator... I'm not changing my argument of "there's no rule that gives you extra attacks per limb" to anything else, because that IS what my argument is about.
Why would I change my argument to the exact point I'm arguing against, and to the point that has no rule basis?
Unarmed Strike wrote:
At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes.
Since there is no off hand for an unarmed strike you can never receive an extra attack for any limb even if you tried to use unarmed strike using TWF because there is no off hand for you to use while TWF.
That only applies to Monks. But thanks for reminding us the monk-limitations.
Since a Monk is the only one with the potential for "8 weapons" I wonder what you thought he was talking about.
|
|
I want to address this point in it's own post so you can read this easily and answer it on it's own in relation to the OP...
lantzkev wrote:
That if you go based off the number of weapons wielded a monk has "8."It has been said multiple times that this cannot happen. You are purposely putting forth a ridiculous situation and trying to disprove it in a sad attempt to disprove a different point which is a straw man argument. Here is the relevant text that you continually ignore to further your own point:
How does having additional arms change anything for a monk striking unarmed? They are already "wielding" 8 weapons.
Giving them extra elbows and hands does not magically give them more attacks. It is already established by the rules that "elbows, knees, feet, and hands" are all "weapons" for a monk due to them being able to strike with those.
If your added arms came with rules that said "you may perform an additional attack" then you'd have something to work with, as it stands they don't. The feat does not, and the only thing close to supporting your stance is that all multi-limbed examples provided so far have extra attacks equal to their extra limbs, unfortunately they also have just as many natural attacks. To conclude that there is a rule that allows you to take as many attacks as you have limbs to wield weapons is a stretch, (monks are already "wielding" 8, and all {PC text regarding extra limbs comes with caveats prohibiting extra attacks from them) then there's the issue of the natural attacks. It's as easily inferred and perhaps has more weight logically given the prohibitions of extra attacks I've already mentioned, that these natural attacks are required to be present so that you are substituting weapon attacks for natural attacks.
lantzkev! STOP! You're being a sperglord now. Stop! Many people are arguing with you largely because they fear you misleading other players who don't have as firm a grasp of the rules. If a limb is shown to be capable of wielding a weapon in any form whatsoever via stat blocks, feats, weapon entry, etc then you can wield multiple weapons. I'm not even going to bother quoting rules at you since you ignore people that do.
I believe at this point you can't stand being wrong or you're a very elaborate troll.
|
|
I think it'd help if you had an argument related to the rules myself.
If you're worried I'll mislead them by quoting rules and asking people with a lack of rules to quote some, you're worried about nothing.
I have a firm grasp of the rules, and I have shown there are no rules supporting the stance being defended, there is only conjecture and inferrence.
Any concern about being mislead through my arguments is only a concern that people won't agree with you.
But you have no rules supporting your stance either.
|
|
My stance is that you only get what the rules allow for.
I don't need a rule saying "you can't do this because it's not in the rules"...
Otherwise I could declare my PC able to have DR/100 for being a 100 year old veteran of tiddlywinks.
-edit-
Unless you're referring to my comments that it's more easily inferred that you have to have as many natural attacks as limbs, and that you're then just substituting natural attacks for weapon attacks as part of a full attack routine... In which case, you're right, but I'm not arguing that as an actual rule, I'm only arguing that it's just as plausible (if not a bit more so) as an inferred rule.