Vestigial arms and wielding weapons


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 59 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

So how would this work. Level 1 barbarian, 4 levels of alchemist, vestigial arms discoverey taken twice, two weapon fighting feat.

Can this character wield 4 weapons? 2 two handed weapons? a two hander and a weapon and shield? what are the penalties?


No, Vestigial arms is very clear and the devs have confirmed this- you can't get extra attacks. Not even with feats. Not in a box, not with a fox.

You can wield a twohander and a shield. The jury is out on two twohanders.


Twohanded weapon and a shield but you could not bash with the shield.


Beast totem or Feral Mutagen to put claws on your extra arms. They're secondary attacks while wielding weapons, but there's still extra attacks.


Darkwolf117 wrote:
Beast totem or Feral Mutagen to put claws on your extra arms. They're secondary attacks while wielding weapons, but there's still extra attacks.

Nope. No extra attacks with the vestigial arms no matter what you do.


Depends on how much weight you put on dev forum posts that directly contradict RAW.

The discovery says, right in the wording, that you can use the two-weapon feat to take one of the attacks with a weapon wielded in a vestigal arm.

So if you were a level 6 ranger with two-weapon fighting, you could make left hand/right hand/vestigal hand as a valid attack routine. RAW.

Although to the OP's question, yes you could wield four weapons, you're just limited to the attacks you can make with them.


I'm still grumpy over the forum opinions on the tentacle which, if made in that detail and force, should have been errata.


DrDeth wrote:
Nope. No extra attacks with the vestigial arms no matter what you do.

And this is because...?

The arm doesn't give extra attacks on its own, but it is specifically mentioned as being able to wield weapons during an alchemist's attack routine.

When mixing natural attacks and manufactured weapons, you forgo natural attacks for weapons clutched in the same limb. If you aren't holding a weapon in the limb that's making the attack, then you're free to go for it.

Let me put it another way. If you've got two limbs with claws, and are wielding a one-handed weapon, you can attack with the weapon and the claws on one hand. If you've got three limbs with claws, you can attack with a weapon and use claws from your two free hands.

Edit:

Ximen Bao wrote:
I'm still grumpy over the forum opinions on the tentacle which, if made in that detail and force, should have been errata.

I'll be honest, I do find the fact that the tentacle can't be used for an extra attack to be nonsensical. It pretty much goes completely against the way natural attacks work, and makes no sense as to why.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ximen Bao wrote:

Depends on how much weight you put on dev forum posts that directly contradict RAW.

The discovery says, right in the wording, that you can use the two-weapon feat to take one of the attacks with a weapon wielded in a vestigal arm.

So if you were a level 6 ranger with two-weapon fighting, you could make left hand/right hand/vestigal hand as a valid attack routine. RAW.

Although to the OP's question, yes you could wield four weapons, you're just limited to the attacks you can make with them.

No. Here's the RAW "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). "

Let me repeat a line "The arm does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round"

And two Devs have said it means exactly that. Now, yes with TWF you could wield a shield and two weapons. But I don;t know how much more clear they could make it than "The arm does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round" unless they added "No extra attacks. We really mean it. Nope, Nada, zilch, zero. Never. Not with a fox, not in a box. And, yes, Ximen Bao, we mean you, too. No extra attacks."

Grand Lodge

Note: attacking with two one-handed weapons, or two two-handed weapons is still the same amount of attacks.

This is an option that absolutely does not break the "no extra attacks" clause.

I suggest two-handing two Sawtooth Sabres, for the reduced penalties.


Alright, well I don't know what's been said about it according to the developers, so if someone has links for that, they might be nice.

Meanwhile though, DrDeth, I think your interpretation of this is off.

Scenario A: Alchemist with 15 BAB, feral mutagen, and a sword. They have two claws and a bite, but one hand is full. They can do +15/+10/+5 with the sword, and +10/+10 with one set of claws and the bite, simultaneously, on a full attack. That's the way mixing natural and manufactured weapons works.

Scenario B: Alchemist with 15 BAB, feral mutagen, vestigial arm, and a sword. They still have the same +15/+10/+5 routine, but because an extra hand is free, they can make 2 claw attacks and a bite for +10/+10/+10.

In the second case, the extra arm isn't adding any extra attacks or giving extra actions - it's letting the alchemist make the attacks that he already has.

What you're arguing for is that, because the arm is indirectly allowing for an extra attack, the relevant RAW mechanics for this scenario need to actually stop working the way they are supposed to in order to specifically disallow it. And I find that to be highly questionable.


http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l7ns&page=467?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Qu estions-Here#23306

and here's another thread:

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ok0w?With-the-Vestigal-Arms-Discovery-can-you- dual#37

There's also a post where SKR weighed in, and others.


I'm sure DrDeth will dig up the link (eta: Ninjaed), but the devs have said precisely that: because the arm is indirectly allowing for an extra attack, the relevant RAW mechanics for this scenario need to actually stop working the way they are supposed to in order to specifically disallow it.

I think a significant rework like that needs to be in the errata, not just a forum post, if it's to be taken seriously.

Where DrDeth is wrong is where he tries to disallow two-weapon fighting with vestigal arms when the feat specifically calls it out as allowed.

To repeat a line: 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 make attacks using two-weapon fighting. So if you have a weapon in each arm and your vestigal arm, and at least two normal iterative attacks, you can make an attack with all three via two weapon fighting


@ DrDeth: Well, we're not talking about dual-wielding or multiweapon fighting here, so I'm not sure what the second thread is supposed to prove.

JJ's response might be more relevant, but it doesn't entirely convince me. I already understand the matter of choosing between using natural attacks or weapons in the same limb.

But Feral Mutagen absolutely does grant you extra attacks. Yes, you'll need to make a choice between wielding a weapon in the same hand as those claws, but otherwise, it definitely adds attacks to your routine as long as you have BAB that is less than 11, and you're not wielding a weapon in both hands and your mouth.

What I'm saying for the Vestigial Arms part is that it frees up the relevant limbs to make those attacks. It isn't adding anything to your routine on its own, it's allowing you to make the ones you normally can.

Do you have any particular response for why the actual rules that handle this scenario just decide to stop working here?

Ximen Bao wrote:
I think a significant rework like that needs to be in the errata, not just a forum post, if it's to be taken seriously.

This might indeed be nice. If they aren't intended to follow the normal rules for such a situation, it needs to be much clearer.

Grand Lodge

Extra means more than is usually possible.

So, as long as you are not making more attacks than one could make whilst two weapon fighting, then you are fine.

Simply using the arm while two-weapon fighting is not somehow breaking the restrictions of the discovery.

So, I repeat, using the arm in conjunction with two weapon fighting is not an extra attack.

Even using two hands for claw attacks, and the other two for weapon attacks is not extra.

One could do the exact same with two claws and two Blade Boots.

Not extra.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Even using two hands for claw attacks, and the other two for weapon attacks is not extra.

This.

Is what I am trying to say. If it is not meant to follow this idea, then that needs to be much clearer.

And yeah, two-weapon fighting and regular BAB already impose their limits on attacks.

I feel like the "No extra attacks" thing sounds like it is meant to specify you can't, at level 2, with an extra arm, say "I attack with my two regular arms and my extra one," at full BAB or something like that. Maybe that's not what it's in there for, but if it means something else that contradicts regular rules, then I think it needs to be clearer.

Grand Lodge

Basically, no multiweapon fighting.

That's it.

Gaining the extra arm doesn't suddenly make you unable to make attacks that those with less arms could make.

That is simply silly.


It's sort of a loophole. If an alchemist gets claws on his two natural hands, he gains two natural attacks. Adding vestigial arm lets him add a weapon. Now he gets iterative weapon attacks and two natural attacks.

So in that case, vestigial arm is not really granting you an extra attack, but letting you do all the attacks you couldn't before because you only had two arms.

However, you could argue that the end result is the same: you can now use an extra attack.

Grand Lodge

No.

You could already throw in Armor Spikes and Unarmed Strikes, before having extra arms.

Still, not extra attacks. Not a loophole.

Silver Crusade

Well now I am confused.....I am getting yes/no hybrid action here....

1. So Greatsword and shield is fine?

2. 2 greatswords is....? If cool are they bot at -4 to hit each with TWF? If this is fine, hows about 2 orc double axes? (Yikes!)

3. A long sword and 3 short swords?

4. TWF with long and short sword, (say at +7/+7) and feral mutagen/2 claws (at +9 each) at the same time?

Thanks guys....I appreciate the effort here. At I plan on ruling yes to 1, and 4, and maybe no to 2 and 3. Thank god its not for society play.


Ximen Bao wrote:

I'm sure DrDeth will dig up the link (eta: Ninjaed), but the devs have said precisely that: because the arm is indirectly allowing for an extra attack, the relevant RAW mechanics for this scenario need to actually stop working the way they are supposed to in order to specifically disallow it.

I think a significant rework like that needs to be in the errata, not just a forum post, if it's to be taken seriously.

Where DrDeth is wrong is where he tries to disallow two-weapon fighting with vestigal arms when the feat specifically calls it out as allowed.

To repeat a line: 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 make attacks using two-weapon fighting. So if you have a weapon in each arm and your vestigal arm, and at least two normal iterative attacks, you can make an attack with all three via two weapon fighting

The relevant RAW mechanics have always been "specific over-rule general" and the specifics of Vestigial arms specifies clearly= no extra attacks. Yes, if they hadn't added that specific, then yes, you could get extra attacks. But they did, and it's very clear. There is no "re-work" it's just how Vestigial arms and tentacles work for the Alchemist. I mean, no one complains that Magic Missile does need either a "to hit" or a "save" but that's a specific for MM, it's special.

Sure, you can "wield" a weapon in all four "hands". But compared to a two armed wielder with the same TWF feats, etc, you get NO MORE ATTACKS. Mind you, since some monsters have different DR, that could be fun- cold iron, silver, slashing, bludgeoning, etc.


Talos the Talon! wrote:

Well now I am confused.....I am getting yes/no hybrid action here....

1. So Greatsword and shield is fine?

2. 2 greatswords is....? If cool are they bot at -4 to hit each with TWF? If this is fine, hows about 2 orc double axes? (Yikes!)

3. A long sword and 3 short swords?

4. TWF with long and short sword, (say at +7/+7) and feral mutagen/2 claws (at +9 each) at the same time?

Thanks guys....I appreciate the effort here. At I plan on ruling yes to 1, and 4, and maybe no to 2 and 3. Thank god its not for society play.

1. Yes.

2. Not under RAI, but apparently under RAW.

3. No, well not to get extra attacks.

4. Again, no extra attacks, not in any combo. (except that TWF does get you the NORMAL extra attacks)

Grand Lodge

1) Yes.

2) Yes, to both, but you won't get any more attacks than one would get two-weapon fighting.

3) Yes, but as stated, no more attacks than one would get two-weapon fighting.

4) Yes. This is no different than using two claws and say, two Blade Boots, or Armor Spikes and a Dwarven Boulder Helmet.

Basically, if the number of attacks is equal to the number of attacks a two armed PC could make, then you are fine.


DrDeth wrote:


Sure, you can "wield" a weapon in all four "hands". But compared to a two armed wielder with the same TWF feats, etc, you get NO MORE ATTACKS. Mind you, since some monsters have different DR, that could be fun- cold iron, silver, slashing, bludgeoning, etc.

This is where the whole specific-over-general breaks down and ignoring RAW takes over.

You're on board with a four-armed person wielding weapons and getting the extra attacks from two armed weapons. As you put it, "Normal extra attacks" are ok.

The problem is when you do something like put claws on the arms instead of weapons. Then they would get 'normal extra attacks' from natural weapons (black blood troll showed how a two-armed person could get the same number), but that's not ok and needs to get shut down because those 'normal extra attacks' fall under 'no extra attacks, not in any combo'.

It's borked.

Grand Lodge

For some, the only thing you can do with the extra arms, is stick them in your arse.


Maybe the problem is that many don't understand the word "vestigial":2. Biology Occurring or persisting as a rudimentary or degenerate structure

In other words, little arms without much strenght.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

So, not usually on the same page as him, but I've gotta agree with DD here. If you are making more attacks with the Vestigial Arms than you were making without them, those attacks are "extra" and disallowed by the specific wording of the power. If you took the claws mutation without the Vestigial Arms mutation, would you still be two-weapon fighting? In most cases, probably not.
BBT's example of Armor Spikes with Blade Boots is, in my opinion, a corner case that still doesn't actually work. Blade Boots and Armor Spikes are both specifically off-hand weapons. They still need a primary to work, and using weird corner case items (only one of which actually appears in a Paizo Core product) to make a case to establish something as "normal" just doesn't jive for me.
"If my character were using these two weird hands free off-hand weapons in conjunction somehow, I could still be making as many attacks as I am now with four arms..." doesn't sound a little forced to you?


I'm with DrDeth: As awesome as it is to smash with 4 arms, it is not possible to get extra attacks from extra arms.

Marginally on-topic, I think we are losing sight of a very important thing here: wielding a two-handed (reach) weapon and a pair tower-shields.


DrDeth wrote:

Maybe the problem is that many don't understand the word "vestigial":2. Biology Occurring or persisting as a rudimentary or degenerate structure

In other words, little arms without much strenght.

And yet they can hold any item of any weight like any other arm. And yet there's no negotiable RAW objection to clasping your arms behind your back and attacking with a GreatHammer using the vestigial arms.

Appeals to real world biology to nerf alchemist discoveries are apt to be ineffective.

Grand Lodge

Blade Boots, Armor Spikes, Barbazu Beard, Dwarven Boulder Helmet, Kobold Tail Attachments, Ratfolk Tailblade and Unarmed Strikes, can all be used as Primary weapon attacks.

There are no "off-hand only" weapons.

It matters not if one is using these weapons, or one wielded in a Vestigial Arm.
As long as the amount of attacks is the same, then no "extra attacks" are being made.

It is not a "corner case", and the Discovery does not suddenly reduce the number of available attacks.

I feel it odd that one has to explain the meaning of "extra" here.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Blade Boots, Armor Spikes, Barbazu Beard, Dwarven Boulder Helmet, Kobold Tail Attachments, Ratfolk Tailblade and Unarmed Strikes, can all be used as Primary weapon attacks.

There are no "off-hand only" weapons.

It matters not if one is using these weapons, or one wielded in a Vestigial Arm.
As long as the amount of attacks is the same, then no "extra attacks" are being made.

It is not a "corner case", and the Discovery does not suddenly reduce the number of available attacks.

I feel it odd that one has to explain the meaning of "extra" here.

"You can't also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa"

"Blade boots come with a spring-mounted knife that pops out when triggered with the right combination of toe presses.

Benefit: You can use a blade boot as an off-hand weapon."

Kobold Tail Attachments only work if the kobold has already taken a feat providing him with a Tail natural attack . Ratfolk Tail Blades, again, are treated as natural attacks and cannot be used to make iterative attacks.

If you couldn't make the attacks without the extra arms, then those are "extra" attacks, and disqualified. Just because there might be some race specific or special item that could potentially give you that number attacks, does not mean that you the character had access to them. If it is more than you were making without the extra arms, it is, again, "extra".

Grand Lodge

Without two weapon fighting, there are no off-hand attacks.

There are no weapons that can only be used whilst two weapon fighting.

When fighting with two Blade Boots, one must be primary.

There are no "off hand only" weapons.

They only exist in houserules.


A better example bbt would be.
1.) two claws and TWF with unarmed strikes there are 4 attacks.

2.) Two claws and two short swords held in vestigial hands there are 4 attacks.

If 1 is legal ( and it is) and 4 = 4.
Then 2 is legal.

If 1 is not legal ( but it is) Or 4 =\= 4.
Then 2 is not legal.


DrDeth wrote:

Maybe the problem is that many don't understand the word "vestigial":2. Biology Occurring or persisting as a rudimentary or degenerate structure

In other words, little arms without much strenght.

Breaking out dictionary definitions. Nice. Maybe you can show me where it says that in the rules? Because I see this, instead:

Vestigial Arm wrote:
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

Sounds just as strong as the alchemist's own arms.

Ssalarn wrote:
If you couldn't make the attacks without the extra arms, then those are "extra" attacks, and disqualified. Just because there might be some race specific or special item that could potentially give you that number attacks, does not mean that you the character had access to them. If it is more than you were making without the extra arms, it is, again, "extra".

Perhaps we can approach this from a different angle?

Does Feral Mutagen give you 'extra' attacks? If you are wielding a sword in one hand, and suddenly have claws and teeth, then yes, it does give you extra attacks.

Does Vestigial Arm give you 'extra' attacks? If you are wielding a sword in one hand, and suddenly have another arm, then no, it does not give you any extra attacks.

But why exactly does having a Vestigial Arm suddenly shut off the attacks that can be done by Feral Mutagen? They are different sources. Vestigial Arm is not giving you any extra attacks, it is letting you use the ones you already have. This is exactly what is covered by the rules for Natural attacks (that is, needing to forgo attacks from limbs holding weapons).

@ Talonhawke: Also, that looks nicely summarized.

Grand Lodge

Well, my point remains the same.

Whether it be from an unarmed strike, or a wielded shortsword, the limit is the same.

Using the arm is not some how more limited, and it certainly does not decrease the number of available attacks.

Same amount of attacks, is the same amount of attacks.

So, use a foot, a head, a tail, or a vestigial arm, and the number of weapon attacks remains the same.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

I'm just gonna go ahead and drop this in here as well....

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.

Grand Lodge

That still agrees with what I have been saying.

No extra attacks are being made.

Whether you are kicking and head-butting whilst attacking with claws, or attacking with two swords, and a pair of claws, the number is the same.

The number of attacks is the same.

The number of attacks is the same.

When the number of attacks is the same, then there is no "extra" attacks.

Do you know what "extra" means?


blackbloodtroll wrote:

That still agrees with what I have been saying.

No extra attacks are being made.

Whether you are kicking and head-butting whilst attacking with claws, or attacking with two swords, and a pair of claws, the number is the same.

The number of attacks is the same.

The number of attacks is the same.

When the number of attacks is the same, then there is no "extra" attacks.

Do you know what "extra" means?

Down tiger. :)

You don't even know what point he was trying to make. (Or at least I think you can't tell from the material posted. It seems to agree with you.)


@ Ssalarn: I'm not sure what that's supposed to prove here.

No one's arguing for the arm to give an extra attack just because it is there. Whether we're talking two-weapon fighting, unarmed strikes, natural attacks or any combination thereof, no one is saying that the Arms give extra attacks just for being there, which is the only thing that quote shoots down (and TWF'ing with greatswords, I guess, which is a shame, 'cuz that could be awesome).

And... that was pretty much reiteration of what BBT said.

Grand Lodge

So, just to let it be said:

Twin Greatswords is fine.

Two claws and two shortswords is fine.

Why?

There is no more attacks being made, then a PC with two arms could make.


I believe, if anyone cares to dig, that SKR came up with a post saying you can't count unarmed attacks that way because what he had in mind was one unarmed attack per limb, and headbutts and kicks shouldn't count if your hands are full, but only in this case rather than in general (I think). Something about two-weapon fighting being the multiple attack standard and all situations of extra attacks should refer back to it as a baseline.

I'm having trouble finding it. But I'm pretty sure that the devs tried to errata this one from the forums. Wasn't particular pleased at the time, so it stuck.


BBT...your Avatar matches how I see you yelling at people in a lot of your post :) (this is a compliment,not an insult sir)

Quote:

ex·tra

/ˈekstrə/
Adjective
Added to an existing or usual amount or number.
Adverb
To a greater extent than usual; especially: "he is trying to be extra good".
Noun
An item in addition to what is usual or strictly necessary.
Synonyms
adjective. additional - special - supplementary - further - spare
adverb. particularly - specially - peculiarly - especially
noun. supplement - supernumerary

Grand Lodge

Yeah, SKR went down some weird road one time, that was completely contrary to any RAW, and then never touched up on it again.

Even weirder, is when I pitched the one-armed fighter, and he went completely against those statements made earlier.


Vestigial Arms don't give you the extra attacks, Feral Mutagen does. That's how I'd rule it. So you can put claws on the Vestigial Arms.

Grand Lodge

Yep, Feral Mutagen gives you extra attacks.

That same Alchemist, who likes to kick and headbutt things, now has two claw attacks.

Now, he has four possible attacks, and whether or not he even has the Vestigial Arms Discovery or not, it is the same amount of attacks.

Four equals four.


Feral Mutagen gives you claw attacks and a bite, all as "primary attacks". It doesn't say which of your hands gain the claws, and I'm sure since it only gives you 2 claw attacks, and isn't accounting for you having more than 2 arms, I would say you gain the claws on your main hands only.

Quote:
Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action (although often a creature must forgo one natural attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a claw, tentacle, or slam). Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack's original type.

Since its explicitly states in the Vestigial Arms discovery that the arms DO NOT grant you extra attacks, I would rule that if you tried to "loop hole" it and put your weapons in your extra hands then you still only get as many as 3 total attacks, any combination of weapons or natural attacks, with the last natural attack being a secondary at -5BAB per the above quote.

There is room for work here of course, TWF and such can complicate things, please feel free to CORRECT me, not give me your opinion :)

And for those that want to say "the rules don't say you CAN'T put the claws on your vestigial arms!!" please instead find where in the rules it says you CAN!! :)

Grand Lodge

That's not a loophole! There is no rules tweaking here.

The guy with claws can still attack with unarmed strikes AKA kicking.

There is no extra attacks being made, nobody is cheesing the system, and most importantly NO EXTRA ATTACKS ARE HAPPENING!

Four equals four.

You cannot say "well, this four is more than this four because I say so".

The extra arms do not decrease or increase the number of attacks.


I wasn't saying that BBT...I was saying that someone could use that as a "loop-hole" not that what you said above WAS a "loop-hole"...I usually have the same conclusions as you do when it comes to these things lol, I was trying to explain it differently

EDIT:I'm a little confused though on unarmed strikes...I thought only monks could use kicks and such for that? If I am (which I seem to be) rightly confused please tell me where I can find that relevant data :) I (and my GM) would love to know for sure


Drakkiel wrote:
Since its explicitly states in the Vestigial Arms discovery that the arms DO NOT grant you extra attacks, I would rule that if you tried to "loop hole" it and put your weapons in your extra hands then you still only get as many as 3 total attacks, any combination of weapons or natural attacks, with the last natural attack being a secondary at -5BAB per the above quote.

First off, putting your weapons in your 'extra hands' doesn't matter. All of your hands function as hands. There's no difference between them.

Anyway though, natural attacks are not related to BAB as a limiter at all. The only thing BAB means to them is attack bonus, and has nothing to do with iteratives or the number of attacks you can make.

A Barbarian with 4 iterative attacks and a bite gets 5 attacks. A Barbarian with 4 iteratives, a bite, and 2 claws gets 6 attacks, assuming one of the hands is wielding a weapon.

You can also check any of the entries in the bestiary that feature monsters wielding weapons. They get all of their iteratives, as well as the natural attacks they can make.

Put simply, the only way you can call attacks 'extra' is if you're making attacks with manufactured weapons or unarmed strikes and going above the limitations set by your BAB and/or two-weapon fighting. Natural attacks do not factor into this limit.

Drakkiel wrote:
please feel free to CORRECT me, not give me your opinion :)

Well then, there is your correction, not opinion :P


I must have written that out wrong...I am on my phone and typing fast (possibly faster than I'm thinking)...because that is what I was TRYING to say lol...just that when you use weapons as part of that full-attack all your natural attacks are made as "secondary attacks"

I will review my post and see what the hell I was saying lol

EDIT:Now I see why BBT went off on me lol

1 to 50 of 59 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Vestigial arms and wielding weapons All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.