I got over 10 years of precedent lantzkev. What do you have?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Every single creature in the game with multiple limbs capable of attacking gets additional attacks with those limbs. All of them. Check the Bestiary.
The sole exception to this is when an extra limb is granted by the Vestigial Limb Alchemist discovery.
That ability is a special case which has special rules included in the description. The reason those special rules exist is because without them the default would be that it would grant additional attacks. That special case does not set a precedent. It is there to make it clear that it is an exception to the precedent.
That is the default stance of every single creature in the game with additional or dangerous limbs. Either they can wield weapons, in which case they have the option of extra attacks during a full attack action, or the limbs have Natural Weapons, in which can be added at the end of a full attack action.
The only reason Multiweapon Fighting and Multiattack exist is to lower penalties on something that a creature with additional limbs can already do.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rule books? Quotes?
I'm surprised you've been playing pathfinder for 10 years, wasn't it released in 2009?
-edit- removed a remark that could be viewed unfavorably
Why bother, you're already viewed unfavorably by a lot of people by now. Pathfinder is just a continuation of DND 3.0 and 3.5 ruleset and you know it! You're now being a jackass.
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...
And what attack bonus is the additional attack at?
|
Doomed Hero, every example in the bestiary has natural attacks = to the number of extra weapon attacks their entry allows for, if you're guessing at rules, it's easy to guess these are required. Without rules establishing it one way or the other, it goes to GM fiat, which is not the area of this forum.
The point of this is that the feat doesn't give extra attacks, and there are no rules that do such (even two weapon fighting which this feat replaces, does not give extra attacks). Bestiary entries while they follow rules in general, they do not all follow rules for that exist for their entry. The reasoning that a "bestiary entry can do it therefor I can" is not a valid reasoning.
|
|
And what attack bonus is the additional attack at?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...
Ah hadn't considered that, guess that's up to the GM, if it was me I'd assume BAB with the -2, but there's nothing there that states one way or the other so it's up to the GM.
-edit to answer question originally posed by this-
The difference between the RAI here and the RAI regarding multi-weapon fighting, is that TWF modifies the rules in combat, the feat does not grant any additional attacks. MWF replaces TWF which modifies the rules penalties for Two-weapon fighting.
There are no rules for three weapon or four weapon fighting available to PCs. Ergo, it only reduces the offhand penalty on all hands (enabling you to dual wield say a long sword in your primary and in your offhand a two handed sword without incurring the usual -10, since two-weapon fighting feat only reduces for one offhand and you have two wielding the 2-hander...)
In this light the feat does plenty specifically compared to what it's modifying. It's adding a minor boost and staying relatively in line with the power of the feat it's replacing.
In others interpretations of it, it suddenly not only replaces TWF but enables as many attacks as you have weapons wielded.
The point of this is that the feat doesn't give extra attacks, and there are no rules that do such (even two weapon fighting which this feat replaces, does not give extra attacks).
You mean like Rapid Shot?
Edit: ninja'd!
Rapid shot specifically says "you make an additional attack" it's pretty clear it does give an extra attack. What it doesn't spell out is at what penalty it's made at.
O.o
|
|
I can't access that site through this firewall, perhaps you can quote it, although I would be leary about quoting from non-paizo.
-edit-
Based off the feat saying "you get an extra shot" in the actual paizo material, and the fact that paizo NPCs with the rapid shot have an extra attack at their BAB -2... I'd say it's clear they get an extra shot.
|
|
I make no concessions for rules that aren't within the pathfinder system. Specifically in the "it got left out, but this totally applies" slippery slope some have tried to take here.
When you have to say things like
That line there to me implies to me
you're getting on the top of that slippery slope from "rules questions" to "homebrew"
When I read the bestiary entries given above, I see them as implying that you must have natural attacks to substitute to get extra use out of your limbs, beyond the ability to dual wield two handed weapons. Maybe it's my concept of that being a cool enough ability as is that I don't view it as necessary for multi-limb creatures to get many many attacks without explicit permission to get those attacks.
When you have to say things likeyou're getting on the top of that slippery slope from "rules questions" to "homebrew"
That line there to me implies to me
When I read the bestiary entries given above, I see them as implying that
I'm on board with latzkev here. There is no explicit rule stating that creatures with more arms get more attacks.
I also think that it is far from ridiculous to think that creatures SHOULD get an attack for each arm. However, nothing like that is actually written in the rules.
Some creatures have the following properties:
1. Extra arms and (the choice of) a natural attack on each arm
2. (The choice of) a weapon attack on each extra arm
There are no creatures with property 1 that does not also have property 2.
A good question is 'what is the link between arms, natural attacks, and (extra) weapon attacks'?. We can try to infer an answer to this question, but we lack an explicit written ruling.
This is, however, a difficult task since the examples have everything all so conflated and mixed together.
One might think that arms qualify you for extra attacks. This may be the case, but every single example of a creature with extra arms also has natural attacks on those arms.
Thus, one might instead think that only arms with natural attacks grant extra attacks. Every single example creature seems to exhibit this, but that might be a coincidence (they are multi-limbed monsters, after all. The natural attacks may be independent).
EDIT:
Looking at the Maralith again, I noticed something interesting.
It always gets its tail slap, but apart from that it either uses only manufactured weapons (+1 longsword) attacks, or only natural (slam) attacks. Even a single longsword attack forbids any slam attacks, and vice versa.
Strange statblocks like that make it hard to infer anything at all.
|
|
See Rynjin, I'm looking at what you wrote and all I see is you taking something out of context to be snarky while providing nothing to the argument but disinformation.
All I said was that I see the same thing you're looking at, and it implies something entirely different. The difference between my seeing this implied meaning and others, is that I don't insist it's correct or even valid. Only that if we're looking at "implied rules" it makes as much or more sense than the way you're debating.
Unlike you, I'm not advocating my reading and inferences are the correct way to view it far from it... I'm saying that if you're left with only inferring a meaning and it can be inferred several ways, you do not use it, or use the harshest inferred meaning possible.
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
James Jacob's opinion here.
|
|
Hey Good find there Blackbloodtroll.
I'm assuming the "...He would gain his full attacks with one weapon and one attack with all the rest." doesn't mean just one attack, but one attack per additional limb beyond the first.
I really wish the people that have QA'd the MTG rules and key terms created a book for RPG makers to follow, or a style guide was made and enforced for language.
Even this comment by him isn't perfectly clear lol.
Ok, cool. We have James Jacob's opinion to clarify the unclear written rules.
So if we take JJ's ruling back to the original case of the monk, his unarmed strikes count as weapons, so he could make an attack for each arm, but since Flurry of Bows says "as Two Weapon Fighting" there will be larger penalties?
That is, a four armed monk's Flurry has -2,-2,-8,-8 as penalties.
However, this ignores the modification to monk unarmed attacks. "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed."
That means that all four arms are primary attacks, so a four armed monk's Flurry is -2,-2,-2,-2.
Even more complicated is when the monk wields (monk) weapons.
Suppose they wield four monk weapons. They no longer get their special "no off-hand" rule, so the Flurry is at -2,-2,-8,-8.
Yeah?
James Jacob's opinion here.
Oh look, it's something we've been telling lantzkev the entire thread. Maybe he'll ignore that too.
Edit: Ninja'd by lantzkev. He did dismiss it.
|
|
time to make a Large Quadruped Eidolon with 12 weapon attacks and pounce and 4 natural attacks at lvl 12...
-edit-Painful Bugger, I did not dismiss it all I said was the he didn't use clear language.
He said full attacks with one weapon, and one attack with all the rest. We understand what he meant, but his language lacks precision. We at least have the context of the conversation (as opposed to the "implied" meaning everyone kept trying to read in) to cue into the intent and the rules he was trying to provide or explain.
If had been trying to say what I think he meant, I'd of said "he'd get his full attack with one weapon, and then the remaining limbs would each get an attack as if they were two-weapon fighting"
|
|
I don't think any of those above points really support it. Logically it was easily concluded that you require the natural attacks
Monsters may follow rules that are unpublished as of yet, or are simply do not follow rules for some abilities.
8 rp is nothing. You have what 20 before you adjust encounters?
It'd be easy enough to add four arms to every core race without "modifying" the encounters...
Of course now that you've declared limbs = attacks, now you have to deal with eidolons having as many attacks as they have limbs...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nope.
The eidolon does not gain any additional natural attacks for an additional pair of arms, but it can take other evolutions that add additional attacks (such as claws or a slam).
Guys, there's no point continuing this conversation. The ruling has been made, so there isn't anything more to talk about. Lantzkev is far too stubborn to admit that his interpretation was incorrect, so arguing with him from this point on is clearly just trollbait.
|
|
I'm not in disagreement with what he wrote, but he's not the rules guy, many many many times in those threads he'll say things like
...it might be something that the rules team didn't anticipate when they built those options for a cleric, so it'd be worth taking that question over to the rules forums to FAQ it.
He answers mostly flavor, and he tries his best to answer questions about rules that seem simple enough to him. He knows what happens when you phrase things certain ways without considering it fully and now that he knows why it was asked, I'm doubting you'll hear a comment from him again over it.
He is not a rules point man, he's the guy that tells you what the world of golarion is supposed to be like and answers things about his job and relating to it, which is not the mechanical rules.
|
|
I've never said I was, I do however know that I can read the rules or lack of rules, I also understand enough about the forums to know who is designated to answer rules and who's designated to answer about flavor. I'll give you a hint, one of them gives his opinion on the rules, the other tells you what the rules are and has occasionally contradicted the other guy...
Unarmed strikes are not parts of one weapon. Mechanically they are treated as different weapons.
Otherwise an unarmed brawler could never two weapon fight with just his fists.
|
|
Did you forget what the original post was about? congrats, you just told the poster that a) arms get additional attacks but b) sorry you dont' because you're fighting with "one" unarmed weapon.
Unarmed Strike Damage: An unarmed strike from a Medium character deals 1d3 points of bludgeoning damage (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). A Small character's unarmed strike deals 1d2 points of bludgeoning damage, while a Large character's unarmed strike deals 1d4 points of bludgeoning damage. All damage from unarmed strikes is nonlethal damage. Unarmed strikes count as light weapons (for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties and so on)
I guess there's no reason they mentioned strikes (plural) or that they are weapons (plural) for no reason.
That the text "Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:" there's no mention of them counting as a singular weapon and that you can't dual wield using several unarmed strikes. (and indeed if your case were true, you'd be unable to flurry since that is treated as if two weapon fighting but at bab = lvl of monk)
Just to refresh, since you seem to have forgotten what the OP asked.
f 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?
If she gets extra attacks are they at the flurry attack bonus of +1 or her bases BAB of 0, since they aren't necessarily part of her flurry...
Seems like the two extra arms should do something...
Thanks
It's totally the subject at hand.
Back in the Pathfinder Beta there was a feat called Weapon Swap that allowed you to Two-Weapon fight with only one weapon. It didn't make it into the finished product. I was sad about that, mostly because I saw it as a chance to use nunchaku the way they are actually used.
Doesn't have much to do with the discussion. I just miss that feat.
You cannot two-weapon fight with unarmed strikes only.
Why not? Unarmed strikes are treated the same way as manufactured weapons. Just call one your primary and one your secondary.
Just because monks don't have an Offhand with unarmed strikes doesn't mean no one else does.
A Brutal Pugilist specifically gets the benefit of Two-Weapon Fighting while Raging and fighting unarmed. Why would he get that if it didn't do anything?
heck, even a monk could take Two Weapon Fighting and do that instead of Flurry. It would be lighting feats on fire, but they could do it...
|
|
The problem is blackbloodtroll the rules don't support you on this.
You were not able to flurry with a single weapon prior to just a few months ago. So clearly unarmed strikes are not treated as a single weapon.
There is no text that treats unarmed strikes as if it were a single weapon. Lastly considering how much you insisted on reading between the lines earlier, you can't read what's presented in the actual text to mean that it's several weapons and can infact be used in two-weapon fighting by classes that do not have flurry?
|
|
quote from Sean K Reynolds himself from a question I had asked him in regards to fighters TWF with unarmed.
The rules say you can make one attack per round, or two with TWF, and iterative attacks according to your BAB. The rules don't care if your unarmed strike is a punch, kick, or headbutt, it just cares that you get only one additional attack if you're using TWF.
Seems a strong case too that it doesn't really matter what you've got, if you're using TWF that's the only thing it does is let you use an extra attack with an offhand weapon. And that CAN be a unarmed strike even if your primary is unarmed as well.
|
|
Nothing indicates that.
You try to walk that path, and then you have things like activating the Two-Weapon Rend feat, with one weapon.
If you plan on using two-weapon rend, then you would need to make sure and be especially careful that you roll the offhand dice seperately... of course though this is no different than when you normally use it...