NON-PFS rules question:


Rules Questions


Ok, so I have this plan that might be a little strange.

I plan to play a Fighter who took 2 levels of Alchemist first to take the Vestigial Arm Discovery and his third level feat as Extra Discovery to take the other Vestigial Arm.

So essential a Fighter with 4 arms.

Here is the rules question:

Because I have 4 arms, and the extra 2 arms work just as well as normal ones, but they do not allow any extra attacks or anything, can I use them to wield 2 handed weapons on each side?

Ex:
Longbow / Tower Shield
Heavy Crossbow / Heavy Crossbow
Longbow / Longbow
Falchion / Falchion
Ect.

Is a ruling laying around for what exactly you can and can't do with more than 2 arms?

Further question.
Could the extra arms be used as natural attacks if say I was playing a race that has claws?


AS far as I am aware, the arms can't be used to make attacks, or allow you to make more attacks. That includes 2handing 2 weapons. SO the Only legit combo you asked for is the first. But then, you don't need the 4th arm either.

Oh and the second option is also valid. Sorta. You can fire the crossbows 1handed and have the according penalties, and reload both with a Vestigial arm's aid.


This is something that has spawned some lengthy disagreements on the rules forum. There is not currently any agreement or official clarification on this. You'll need to see how your GM interprets it.


You can use the arm to attack, it just can't give you "extra attacks."

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

What qualifies as "extra attacks" is somewhat disputed.

But I don't see a reason you couldn't use it to two hand a weapon. Could you two hand two different weapons? I would say yes, but that is also somewhat disputed.


Jellyfulfish wrote:

AS far as I am aware, the arms can't be used to make attacks, or allow you to make more attacks. That includes 2handing 2 weapons. SO the Only legit combo you asked for is the first. But then, you don't need the 4th arm either.

Oh and the second option is also valid. Sorta. You can fire the crossbows 1handed and have the according penalties, and reload both with a Vestigial arm's aid.

While yes it does not allow you to make EXTRA attacks, they can wield weapons as given in the example for vestigial arms, they can be used to attack just not any more attacks than you would normally have.

From what I am reading if I have 4 arms and I have a BAB of +6/+1 I could hold my Tower Shield with two arms and brace it, as well as having two hands for say a Great Sword.
Or
If I had Two Weapon Fighting and Improved TWF, I could attack with a pair of Crossbows without the penalty for firing them one handed, because I am still using each with two hands.

Neither of those give EXTRA attacks, they simply make the same number of attacks using an extra hand to hold the weapon.

The Natural Weapon part is a big question but I can see that being a major headache considering the normal weird rules that natural attacks deal with.

Liberty's Edge

Whisperknives wrote:
From what I am reading if I have 4 arms and I have a BAB of +6/+1 I could hold my Tower Shield with two arms and brace it, as well as having two hands for say a Great Sword.

Iterative attacks do not have anything to do with the use of a tower shield. If by "bracing" you mean to use the shield for cover, that requires a standard action each turn, so you could not attack while "bracing".

If you are referring to something else, you might want to clarify it.

Whisperknives wrote:
Or...If I had Two Weapon Fighting and Improved TWF, I could attack with a pair of Crossbows without the penalty for firing them one handed, because I am still using each with two hands.

You would need to take the Monster feat Multiweapon Fighting to diminish the two-weapon fighting penalties when using more than two arms. It specifically states that it replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms...but in my experience, most GMs do not allow players to take monster feats.


RedDogMT wrote:
Whisperknives wrote:
From what I am reading if I have 4 arms and I have a BAB of +6/+1 I could hold my Tower Shield with two arms and brace it, as well as having two hands for say a Great Sword.

Iterative attacks do not have anything to do with the use of a tower shield. If by "bracing" you mean to use the shield for cover, that requires a standard action each turn, so you could not attack while "bracing".

If you are referring to something else, you might want to clarify it.

Whisperknives wrote:
Or...If I had Two Weapon Fighting and Improved TWF, I could attack with a pair of Crossbows without the penalty for firing them one handed, because I am still using each with two hands.
You would need to take the Monster feat Multiweapon Fighting to diminish the two-weapon fighting penalties when using more than two arms. It specifically states that it replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms...but in my experience, most GMs do not allow players to take monster feats.

Bracing I was just meaning using the tower shield with 2 hands, no game mechanics but it would make sense.

Multi-Weapon fighting would only matter if I could make extra attacks with those other arms, however as it states in the Vestigial Arms discovery, you can not make extra attacks so there is no need for multi-weapon fighting.

Think of it like this:

A fighter/ranger ect. has two weapon fighting at level 4 they can make 2 attacks at a BAB of +2 / +2 they could use a crossbow as normally stated in the rules at a a -2 penalty for using it with one hand.

However an Alchemist with 4 arms, could do the same thing, however making the same number of attacks, he would still have two arms to hold the crossbow with so would not take the additional -2. No extra actions, no extra attacks, just more stable firing.


I wouldn't say the rules forbid it, but your GM may frown on it. Even though you're not getting extra attacks, technically, you're using action economy as if you were.

With two hands, the choice is between two attacks or to use both hands on one weapon.
Logically, if you have four hands, the choice would be among four attacks, or using any two of the hands on one weapon, or two pairs on two weapons. You don't have the first two choices with Vestigial arms, but the third slides in on a technicality. So it might be legal, but is a little fishy, to dual wield two handers.

Keep in mind that you have three off hands - even if you are able to dual-wield greatswords, it's not likely you can get 1.5x strength on your second sword. This is a relatively negligible level and feat investment to increase the base damage of your weaponry by a significant amount, so your GM may not like it.


According to the FAQ on TWF, in particular the part about fighting with a 2 handed weapon + a bladed boot/armor spikes being not allowed "because the off-hand is already used to wield the 2handed", then no you can't.

take it this way : a humanoid has a main hand and a off-hand attack potential. If you wield a 2handed, you combine both to get 1.5 str mod to dmg. Funny how main-hand(1.0 str mod) + off-hand(0.5) = 2handed huh?

The Vestigial arms allows you to have more options rdy. Like potions, or even another weapon. But you can't exceed the normal main-hand+off-hand rule with them.

Since main-hand and off-hand are only taken into account for attacking, you can still wear a shield with one of the Vestigial arms to get AC. You can't however, shield bash with it if you attack with a 2handed with 2 of your other hands, or attack with two 1handed weapons already.


Jellyfulfish wrote:

According to the FAQ on TWF, in particular the part about fighting with a 2 handed weapon + a bladed boot/armor spikes being not allowed "because the off-hand is already used to wield the 2handed", then no you can't.

take it this way : a humanoid has a main hand and a off-hand attack potential. If you wield a 2handed, you combine both to get 1.5 str mod to dmg. Funny how main-hand(1.0 str mod) + off-hand(0.5) = 2handed huh?

The Vestigial arms allows you to have more options rdy. Like potions, or even another weapon. But you can't exceed the normal main-hand+off-hand rule with them.

Since main-hand and off-hand are only taken into account for attacking, you can still wear a shield with one of the Vestigial arms to get AC. You can't however, shield bash with it if you attack with a 2handed with 2 of your other hands, or attack with two 1handed weapons already.

The part about the shield bash is directly from a FAQ. The expansion of the FAQ to the situation the OP outlines is opinion, though it may, nonetheless, be a reasonable interpretation of the consequences of the FAQ.

Liberty's Edge

Whisperknives wrote:
Multi-Weapon fighting would only matter if I could make extra attacks with those other arms, however as it states in the Vestigial Arms discovery, you can not make extra attacks so there is no need for multi-weapon fighting.

You are incorrect. It is more involved than just making the actual attack. Remember, paizo has already ruled in the FAQ that you cannot use a two-handed weapon with Two-Weapon fighting.

And again, Multiweapon Fighting states that it replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms. Your character is a creature with more than two arms. If your GM follows RAW strictly, he could easily say that you can't even take the Two-weapon Fighting feat (I think that would be a poor choice, but RAW supports it)

It may be best for you to work with your GM before moving forward with this concept.


RedDogMT wrote:
Whisperknives wrote:
Multi-Weapon fighting would only matter if I could make extra attacks with those other arms, however as it states in the Vestigial Arms discovery, you can not make extra attacks so there is no need for multi-weapon fighting.

You are incorrect. It is more involved than just making the actual attack. Remember, paizo has already ruled in the FAQ that you cannot use a two-handed weapon with Two-Weapon fighting.

And again, Multiweapon Fighting states that it replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms. Your character is a creature with more than two arms. If your GM follows RAW strictly, he could easily say that you can't even take the Two-weapon Fighting feat (I think that would be a poor choice, but RAW supports it)

It may be best for you to work with your GM before moving forward with this concept.

MultiWeapon Fighting

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.

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

The feat is made for creatures that can attack with more than two arms, thus why it mentions the term all of its off hands, key word "hands", twice. An alchemist can not get more off hands attacks than a fighter with 2 arms can, so the this feat alone, would make you a worse dual wielder than everyone else even if you chose to use a pair of kukris.

If that feat is required, which it isn't, that would mean that every other class who dual wields 2 light weapons does so at -2 to each but someone with 4 arms still just wielding 2 light weapons would be at -4, -4 for the same action even though they are doing the same thing, with the same weapons, just with 2 other arms sitting there.

That is not what the feat was made for.


Driver 325 yards wrote:
The part about the shield bash is directly from a FAQ. The expansion of the FAQ to the situation the OP outlines is opinion, though it may, nonetheless, be a reasonable interpretation of the consequences of the FAQ.

It's strange, I was sure it was part of the FAQ. I meant the clause explicitly saying you can't use two-weapon fighting with a 2handed and armor spikes, for example. And the reasoning behind it was exactly what i said above : that you have a main and an off- hand, and that the 2handed uses both, so you don't have any off-hands left to use two-weapons fighting, even if the off-hand attack intended is armor spikes or bladed boots.

Maybe it was only designer insight on some thread, or blog. I do recall it caused quite a fuss. Since i can't find it, i guess I can't back up my words with RAW.

But anyway, the bottom line (of my imaginary post/FAQ) applies here as well : Vestigial arms do not grant you more attacks, pretty much like armor spikes can't be used if you already 2hand a weapon.


Ha ! it was hidden in the combat part of the FAQ :

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, 07/26/13


Jellyfulfish wrote:

Ha ! it was hidden in the combat part of the FAQ :

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, 07/26/13

This is still vague. How was the "armor spike" being used? Was the arm being flung out? That seems to be what the fellow is referencing because he then brings up armored gauntlet. However, a blade in a boot is not a hand. Same with an unarmed strike being a head bash or a kick. A greatsword wielder can use an unarmed strike (kick) as his secondary attack just like a monk with his hands full can kick 9 times instead of punching.

Edit: Also, I think the Design Team forgot that a person can "let go" of something as a free action. Swing blade, let go, spiked gauntlet fist punch. Same round, all legal. Unless it's not legal to follow the rules as written... Or I'm thinking of 3.5. Might be that.


Deviston: it seems "hand" refers to a game mechanic, not an actual limb. Armor spikes and blade boots both require a hand, barbazu beards explicitly dont.


You are comparing apples to oranges. The beard attack isn't an attack, it's an added effect like rend. Bonus if certain conditions are met (in this case hitting with two claw attacks).

I don't think it's fair to compare a "Special Attack" with a regular melee attack. Well, in this specific case rather they are a bad comparison.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ilja wrote:
Deviston: it seems "hand" refers to a game mechanic, not an actual limb. Armor spikes and blade boots both require a hand, barbazu beards explicitly dont.

Precisely; which is why the Alchemist is a little weird. It does grant you hands that can wield weapons, but doesn't grant extra attacks. It's not precise on whether they can be fudged to give action economy as if you *could* attack with them (the technicality I alluded to earlier), but my hunch is you can't.

There's still any number of ways to make use of the hands for weapons. You can carry your ranged weapon in two hands and melee in the other, and not have to spend actions drawing or sheathing weapons to make ranged attacks. You could carry a Morningstar in case you are fighting a mix of skeletons and other monsters, and elect to hit with that when appropriate. You can leave one hand free to load both your hand or light crossbows with Rapid Reload.


The typical example is the boot blade. It uses one of your "metaphorical hands", so you can't use a two-handed weapon and a boot-blade. This probably gets even more ridiculous in the case of creatures with multiple arms and things like boot blades, because each extra manufactured weapon they could be using to attack would use up an "hand" even if it wasn't in a hand or on an arm.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Scenario 1: Fighter makes two attacks with his two longswords.
Scenario 2: Alchemist makes two attacks with his two longswords.

Scenario 1: Fighter drops one and take the free hand and grips the longsword, now gaining bonus damage from two handing it.
Scenario 2: Alchemist raises his vestigial arm to grasp his longsword, now gaining bonus damage from it. He still gets two attacks because he is still wielding two blades, but has not gained any "additional attacks".

Scenario 1: Fighter drops longsword and picks up greatsword, which requires two hands to hold, just like he did just a second ago with the longsword.
Scenario 2: Alchemist drops longsword and picks up greatsword, which requires two hands to hold, just like he did a second ago with the longsword. However, he also drops his second longsword and picks up a second greatsword, mimicking the mechanics allowed with the first pair of hands. He still gains no extra attacks.

The alchemist is using the "arm can wield a weapon and make attacks as part of the alchemist’s attack routine" option. He is gaining no new, extra, bonus, or additional attacks. He is simply using the strength from the vestigial arm to "wield a weapon and making attacks as part of his already existing attack routine".

Edit: You are still TWF, just with improbable weapons.


And in plenty of other threads, the developers have made their intent clear that you not only get no extra attacks, but you get no extra attack economy. So you don't get to two-hand two greatswords because you're attacking with four hands worth of action economy.

Mind you, I don't really care about that rule because it's silly. It's the kind of rule that a game designer can and should care about when making the rules, but it is not the kind of rule that a player should have to worry about should the designers publish a rule that didn't mean what they thought it meant. In the latter case, a designer should issue errata rather than attempt belated clarification using designerspeak.

But that's just, like, my opinion, man.


"in plenty of other threads...but you get no extra attack economy"

Yeah, errata would be nice. I don't think them just posting counts does it? Not being sarcastic, honestly asking.


Quote:
But that's just, like, my opinion, man.

Don't worry, Blahpers, these characters are alchemists. There's nothing to be afraid of.

Quote:
Yeah, errata would be nice. I don't think them just posting counts does it? Not being sarcastic, honestly asking.

If it's an Official Rules Response or an FAQ, it counts. If it isn't, it still tells you which way the win is blowing, and thus your chances of getting it past a GM are lower.


The wording on the Vestigial arm needs to be clarified. On that all agree. Because taking it RAW, 4 arms (2x Vestigial arm) alchemist CAN swing 2x 2handed. Not gaining extra attacks, thus conforming to RAW.

But the FAQ on twf and armor spikes make it clear that the designers have in mind the off-hand attack as being an additionnal attack to an attack routine where only a main-hand was used. Be that off-hand really a hand or not is irrelevent. A two handed weapons uses both the main and the off-hand attack potential. If you don't have extra attacks, you can't use the extra arms to make further attacks.

AS far as the benefit for having extra arms (even without attacks) go, there are plenty of awesome scenarios :
1) 2handed + shield. (requires only 1 extra arm) Always add 1.5 STR mod and power attack for 1-3. Always have your shield AC for protection. Essentially the old animated shield property from 3.5

2) 3 different weapons wielded. Mix and match a main hand and a off-hand attack to maximize effectiveness against particular DR.

3) Sword and board, possible twf. Extra hand allows spellcasting, akin to somantic weaponry feat from 3.5 (don't have to sheath/drop the weapon to cast)

Probably a dozen more i can't imagine at the moment.

THe problem, mechanic wise, that arise when twf 2x 2handed is quite cumbersome. As you only have 1 main hand, one of the swings will benefit from 1.5 STR mod and 1-3 power attack. But what about the other one? You only have two off-hands left, how do you deal with the dmg bonus rules and the to-hit calculations ?

RAW, you would need to go to the table for twf, and use the -4/-4 line for your to-hit, as you don't have a off-hand light weapon. The bonus dmg and power attack ratio is still up for debate.

If you use a 2handed, a light weapon and a shield, one could argue that with twf feat, you could squeeze 1.5 str mod on the 2handed, and 0.5 str mod on off-hand, both attacks at -2. And still benefit form the shield for AC, via the 4th arm (no bashing). But that kind of solution is clearly in violation (IMO) of the intent of the FAQ reagarding TWF and armor spikes.


Honestly, for Pathfinder 2 whenever that actually gets worked on, I hope they rebuild the whole wield/arm mechanic to be directly tied to the action economy, not only in the design goals but in the written rules in an obvious way.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Limited metaphorical hands and unwritten rules prevent things that don't make sense, no matter how many actual hands you have.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / NON-PFS rules question: All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.