|
You say, "still not possible", but it used to be.
Good thing I've only applied 2 GM credits to my PFS alchemist. I really liked the idea of a 4 armed Wayang character. Add an extra level to its already creepy nature.
If that's the ruling they're going to go with, then there is absolutely nothing those extra arms could do for you. They couldn't hold things, you wouldn't be able to do a shield with a two-handed weapon, you couldn't threaten with a melee weapon and use a bow at the same time, none of it.
|
|
Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?No.
Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.—Pathfinder Design Team, Friday
|
You say, "still not possible", but it used to be.
Just because it was allowed in games you played, doesn't mean it used to be allowed. It just means it used to be allowed at your table.
As to your question, I'm honestly not sure. It does use the word wield under vestigial, but it also says you can't get any additional attacks or actions.
I'll FAQ.
|
Your arms don't grant you extra attacks, but they grant you extra hands. You can hold weapons in those hands, so you could TWF with 2h weapons if you have 4 arms. You aren't getting extra actions, you have the same actions as if you TWF with 2 daggers, you just wield bigger weapons. I'll hit FAQ if you like, but this reasoning seems perfectly reasonable.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
No. It's never been possible.
I highly disagree. There are many threads dedicated to optimizing the use of a 4 armed character, including two-weapon fighting with longbows.
But if the design team feels that you can't fight with a two-handed weapon, and use armor spikes as your "off-hand" attack, then you couldn't do it with extra actual hands, either.
Those three-armed Gunslinger Alchemists can no longer load their guns with their free hand, either.
This has the potential to upset a lot of characters. It's already upsetting to those that were using Boulder Helmets, Blade Boots, and Armor Spikes.
I just, once again, don't think the design team put a lot of thought into this ruling.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can highly disagree all you like. It was FAQed and it came back that the threads dedicated to optimizing were wrong and the people who actually wrote the rules were right.
If you want to argue random people on the internet know more about what the rules mean than the people that wrote them, feel free.
But it isn't a very strong argument.
EDIT: Also, I might add I am not terribly heartbroken that people who make an effort to find loopholes in the rules might be sad when those loopholes get closed by a clarification.
I don't think it's useless. You can still wield extra items, don't have to draw different rods/wands/weapons/whatever because you can hold extra things, etc. I haven't really delved into it, but I'm not entirely convinced yet that the new FAQ necessarily disallows two-handed TWF. It may (probably does), but I'd have to mull it over a bit.
|
|
The FAQ is written with the thought that you have 2 hands. It would be a special case if you have 4 arms. It says that your off hand is no longer free to make attacks, yet if you have another off hand, you would no longer have your off hand occupied. Saying your off hand isn't the hand you aren't using, but simply your left hand, is like saying you can't use a 1h weapon if you have only one hand.
I don't think the OP understands that Off-Hand doesn't mean a particular hand.
The FAQ says nothing about hands gained through vestigial arms or other means. I have no idea where he's getting the idea that vestigial arms are useless now, considering you never held armor spikes in your hands anyway.
Well with Jason B's newest post I would have to say you cannot use 4 arms and Two Weapon Fight with Two Two Handed Weapons because it breaks the x 1.5 Str in a round.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't agree that Jason's clarification or the FAQ affects this particular issue. The FAQ/Jason clarification is directed towards "normal" characters. SKR and Jason both recognize that there are feats, abilities, etc. that break the norm. Vestigial arms is an ability that breaks the norm.
I have to say that if they feel x1.5 str and x.5 str is too much, then x1.5 str and x1.5 str has to be to much, doesn't it?
I know it is a special ability but it seems like that would go against everything that the PDT is talking about right now.
|
I think that the 1.5 str bonus represents you putting all of your effort into that one strike, so you would only get 1x your STR on the first attack and .5 on your second attack with 2h weapons. This is how our group houseruled it when I asked the DM if I could play an alchemagus.
I have already suggested this many times, in lieu of this new restriction.
Vestigial arms were never meant to help you dual wield 2-handers on a 2-armed character. Thus the "loophole" that's really not a loophole. Some table variance allowed it, others did not. That table variance is unlikely to change just because of an FAQ ruling.
Now all the munchkins are seen crying "Vestigial Limbs are now useless". No, they're not. Their original intention is simply clarified because too many people were using them outside of design parameters and whining when their DM didn't allow it.
If you have 4 actual arms (not vestigal limbs/prehensile hair/prehensile tails that you're using to munchkin), this FAQ does nothing. Feel free to continue wielding 2-handers in each set of arms.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Vestigial arms were never meant to help you dual wield 2-handers on a 2-armed character. Thus the "loophole" that's really not a loophole. Some table variance allowed it, others did not. That table variance is unlikely to change just because of an FAQ ruling.
Now all the munchkins are seen crying "Vestigial Limbs are now useless". No, they're not. Their original intention is simply clarified because too many people were using them outside of design parameters and whining when their DM didn't allow it.
If you have 4 actual arms (not vestigal limbs/prehensile hair/prehensile tails that you're using to munchkin), this FAQ does nothing. Feel free to continue wielding 2-handers in each set of arms.
Actually, it does effect naturally 4 armed creatures, as a single attack with a greatsword stops them from attacking with anything else, no matter the arms.
Also, what was the original intention of the arms?
The question is, whats different that a fighter with a 2 hander making 2 attacks with his weapon with boyh receiving the 1.5 bonus than an alchemist with 2 sets of arms holding 2 different 2handed weapons, making 2 attacks with each with the 1.5 str?
I understand the 1.5 is using all ur strength into that attack, but since alchemist with the arms dont gain an addition attack with their arms and can only use the amount of attacks?
|
|
Alchemist gets it sooner. That is the difference. Alchemist gets it sooner. As for the original purpose of the arms, I'd say, if I was making Barry's assumption that it wasn't meant for TWF with 2h weapons, fluff. Nothing practical it gives can't be replaced by one feat (quick draw) so the only reason you take this discovery is for fluff.
|
|
Alchemist gets it sooner. That is the difference. Alchemist gets it sooner. As for the original purpose of the arms, I'd say, if I was making Barry's assumption that it wasn't meant for TWF with 2h weapons, fluff. Nothing practical it gives can't be replaced by one feat (quick draw) so the only reason you take this discovery is for fluff.
That's bad design.
Vestigial arms were never meant to help you dual wield 2-handers on a 2-armed character. Thus the "loophole" that's really not a loophole. Some table variance allowed it, others did not. That table variance is unlikely to change just because of an FAQ ruling.
Now all the munchkins are seen crying "Vestigial Limbs are now useless". No, they're not. Their original intention is simply clarified because too many people were using them outside of design parameters and whining when their DM didn't allow it.
If you have 4 actual arms (not vestigal limbs/prehensile hair/prehensile tails that you're using to munchkin), this FAQ does nothing. Feel free to continue wielding 2-handers in each set of arms.
Actually, it does effect naturally 4 armed creatures, as a single attack with a greatsword stops them from attacking with anything else, no matter the arms.
Also, what was the original intention of the arms?
Perhaps I missed something when reading it, or am just reading it a different way, but I don't see anything that says or even suggests "if you have an additional set of arms, this prevents you from using a 2-handed weapon in that set of arms".
I don't read this as a blanket nerf on off-hand activities. If you naturally have 2 sets of arms, don't you have 2 primaries and 2 off-hands? Perhaps that's where my lack of understanding lies.
|
|
Vestigial arms you can use as well as your original arms.
The arm can manipulate or hold items as well as the alchemist's original arms
And therefor it would be the same as if you had 4 natural arms. You, barry, were the one suggesting that you can't dual-wield 2h weapons with 4 arms. There is pretty much no difference between vestigial arms and natural arms.
|
|
Lets look at the facts again
1.)You can get 4 arms as a PC if you are an alchemist.
2.)You can not wield 2 handed weapons with armor spikes or gauntlets BECAUSE YOUR OFF HAND IS BEING USED TO WIELD A WEAPON.
According to these, the devs wrote this with the idea of you having 2 hands. If you have an spare hand to attack with, you can make a second attack with a penalty. I think I just answered the OP.
EDIT:
Post removed. Ninja'd my meat by above and below post. Nothing else really needs said.
The FAQ is assuming a character with two hands. SKR said so explicitly on Saturday; the FAQ is written from the perspective of a 1st level humanoid character with only two hands, no racial natural attacks, etc.
I would go offer up the quote, but to be honest I don't really feel like digging back through the thread to find it; it makes my head hurt. That said, I will tap FAQ; I like the overall flavor of a four-armed alchemist dual wielding two-handed weapons, so would like to know if that is viable under the current rules.
|
|
The FAQ does assume that PC's have 2 hands. If you have more arms (Like through vestigial arm alchemist discovery for instance) then it seems as if, how the FAQ is formatted, you could TWF with vestigial arms. Normally you cannot TWF with 2h weapons because you don't have enough arms to use them. However, vestigial arms says that you can use your arms to do anything your normal arms could do (such as be the off hand to help wield a 2h weapon). With these rules, you could theoretically say you could dual-wield 2h weapons because you have enough arms to do so. Please tell me where in this i'm not making sense barry.
It's not that you're not making sense, it's a clash of interpretation and a mistaken reading by me. I was reading the tentacle version, not the arm one for functionality. That one is my bad.
Just because you have extra arms doesn't automatically qualify you to use weapons, skills, or abilities outside your normal skill/feat range.
I won't argue that you can physically wield 2 two-handed swords. One in your left arms, one in your right arms. However, being able to coordinate those actions would require more than presence of extra limbs. It requires martial prowess and extra training. Especially if these extra arms came to you via unnatural means like an Alchemist Discovery.
It says you can use your arms to do anything your normal arms could do. Can your normal arms dual wield two-handed swords without being a Titan Mauler?
I guess the real question is this: Yes, you are only using two weapons. But you are using four arms. Would substituting MWF for TWF make sense, perhaps?
Multiweapon Fighting (Combat)
This multi-armed creature is skilled at making attacks with multiple weapons.Prerequisites: Dex 13, three or more hands.
Benefit: Penalties for fighting with multiple weapons are reduced by –2 with the primary hand and by –6 with off hands.
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.) See Two-Weapon Fighting in the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook.
Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms.
If you have the STR score and sub in MWF for TWF, I would allow 2 two-handers.
Heck, it makes a cool new twist on sword and board.
Are we thinking Nodachi and Tower shield?
|
|
You do gain the arms from unnatural sources, but it still says you could use them as well as you could use your normal arms. Multiattack requires you to have three natural attacks, so you would need to take vestigial tentacle three times or be a race with 2 claws and a bite attack. You could TWF with bastard swords if you have the EWP feat for them, and they are sort of 2h weapons if you don't have the feat. You also can make a primary attack with your left hand wielding a greataxe using your right hand to assist it, and vice versa. So i don't see why you can't use a right and left hand to wield a greataxe, and another right and left hand to wield a greatsword. If you were to take TWF after you got 4 arms, would it be more plausible?