Kasatha & Multi-weapon Fighting Questions


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 51 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

10 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

OK, so, here's my question.

Bestiary 4 just came out, and lists the Kasatha as an actual character race (ARG just had them as an example race if I remember correctly).

Kasatha wrote:


Multi-Armed (Ex) A kasatha has four arms. One hand is considered its primary hand; all others are considered off hands. It can use any of its hands for other purposes that require free hands.

So, now that we have a player race with four arms, and I have questions on how this race would work with existing rules (especially in light of the two-handed/off-hand ruling with regards to armor spikes and such). Everything with letters below is a question.

So I see two situations :

1) Kasatha does NOT have Multi-Weapon Fighting
2) Kasatha has Multi-Weapon Fighting

In the case of 1, it seems things are somewhat straight forward, but there are things that can be done that normal characters can't. So, in situation one, I believe all these rules all apply. Note that none of the below examples is intended to give attacks beyond what could be made using iteratives (IE : No they are not getting 4 attacks without a feat).

A) Can a Kasathan Magus wield a two-handed weapon with one pair of arms, wear a heavy shield on a third arm, and have a fourth arm free for casting spells, allowing a Magus to use his class abilities with a two-handed sword. (I believe yes)
B) Can a Kasathan Monk wield a temple blade in two hands, and as part of his flurry switch between the temple blade and his unarmed strikes from his extra arms (not getting extra attacks). (I believe yes)
C) Can a Kasathan Zen Archer Monk wield a bow in two hands, and a temple sword in his other two hands as a one-handed weapon using two-hands, and then use his bow for ranged attacks, and his Temple Sword for attacks of Opportunity? (I am unsure about this, I lean yes, because when he's attacking with the bow, his temple sword is not part of his flurry and can't be, so it's mostly being held in two hands but not wielded, after his flurry, the bow is being held in one hand, and his temple sword is now in his primary and off hand).
D) Can a Kasathan Gunslinger wield a musket in two hands, a pistol in a third, and reload using his fourth free hand? (I believe yes, a pistol can be an off-hand weapon, the rifle requires a primary and off-hand, and one off-hand to reload, all seems legit).
E) Can a Kasathan Archer wield two bows, one in each pair of arms? (I lean Yes, but with a caveat, it is possible to switch primary and off-hand as a free action per FAQs, so as long as the Kasathan is not gaining more than base iterative attacks, I see no reason why he can't attack with Bow 1, free action to switch primary hand to Bow 2, fire with Bow 2, and keep going until he's out of iteratives, I can only see this useful if you're using something like a fire bow in one set of hands and an ice bow in the other, and you realize fire is healing the target).
F) Can a Kasathan Fighter wield a polearm in one pair of hands, and a bastard sword in the other pair of hands, and threaten at reach and at 5 feet? How about if he's wielding the BS in one hand with EWP? (I lean No on the first, because he has only one primary and therefore can't use the same primary on both weapons at the same time, he can only switch the primary as a free action when he has free actions, On the second half I say yes, for the same reason a monk can do the same thing, they have a short range weapon not using the primary hand).

Ok, given the above, now let's look at situation 2, where the Kasathan has Multi-weapon fighting. A refresher please :

PRD wrote:


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.

Now, given this quote, and the assumption the Kasathan has MWF...

G) Can a Kasathan wield a two-handed weapon in one pair of arms, wear a shield on arm 3, and wield a knife in arm 4, and still attack with the Two-Handed weapon + shield bash (offhand) and then off-hand with the knife? (I say yes, he does not violate the two-handed/spiked armor FAQ because he's losing one of his off-hand attacks to get the 1.5 str mod on the two-handed weapon).
H) Can a Kasathan with MWF taking Improved & Greater Two Weapon Fighting? (I lean yes, because the feat says it 'replaces' two weapon fighting for multi-armed opponents. This still only gives one additional off-hand attack, same as for a two-armed character. There's no other reason for this line in the feat otherwise).
I) Can a Kasathan with MWF wield two two-handed weapons and two-weapon fight with them? (I lean No, since he still has only one primary hand, although theoretically he can switch that primary as a free action, so I'm conflicted. He's still giving up off-hand attacks to do so, and maintaining the 1.5 str multiplier unwritten rule the FAQ brought up).
J) Can a Kasathan Two-Weapon Fighter Archetype and the EWP (Bastard Sword) (or Katana) wield a BS (or Katana) in all four hands and attack normally with each (other than the -2 for MWF)? (I say yes, because the two-weapon fighter archetype says he treats a one-handed weapon as light for his off-and, and EWP says BS/Katana is a one-handed weapon)
K) Does a Kasathan Monk with MWF add 2 additional unarmed strikes to his flurry of blows? Or, does he even need to do this since the Monk Flurry references TWF (Which MWF replaces for multi-armed characters)? (I honestly have no idea. From a balance standpoint, I don't see the monk getting his extra off-hands being any more powerful than a two-weapon fighter archetype getting his for MWF. RAW it's murky though.)
L) If a Kasathan Gunslinger has 3 double barreled pistols, one in Primary, and one each in two of his off-hands, and he can reload one barrel as a free action (and assuming there's no free action limit in place), can he reload all 3 pistols as free actions using his free hand? (I want to say NO, but it'd have to be a free action limit, which I don't like to do given how murky that gets)
M) If an archetype or class gives two-weapon fighting as a feature, does the Kasathan instead get MWF? (Similar to K above, but because Monk uses the 'like twf' and it isn't 'twf' I wanted to break it out. On this one, I'm much more confident it's a Yes, the MWF says it replaces TWF for multi-armed characters).

Please no 'bestiary feats only for monsters' nonsense ok? If there is a playable character in the bestiary that is specifically called out for the feat (multi-armed characters) then the feat is valid to be taken by the character.


mdt wrote:


Kasatha wrote:


Multi-Armed (Ex) A kasatha has four arms. One hand is considered its primary hand; all others are considered off hands. It can use any of its hands for other purposes that require free hands.

<snip>

Note that none of the below examples is intended to give attacks beyond what could be made using iteratives (IE : No they are not getting 4 attacks without a feat).

But they can. You don't need TWF feat to use two weapons, it only decreases the penalties. Similarly, the kasatha can wield four weapons without a feat, Multiweapon Fighting only decreases the penalty for doing so.

Quote:
A) Can a Kasathan Magus wield a two-handed weapon with one pair of arms, wear a heavy shield on a third arm, and have a fourth arm free for casting spells, allowing a Magus to use his class abilities with a two-handed sword. (I believe yes)

I would say no. Spell Combat requires a light or one-handed weapon.

But he could use a one-handed weapon with two hands, a shield, and have one hand free for casting.

Quote:
B) Can a Kasathan Monk wield a temple blade in two hands, and as part of his flurry switch between the temple blade and his unarmed strikes from his extra arms (not getting extra attacks). (I believe yes)

I don't see any problem with this. The FAQ states you can use one weapon and replace any number of attacks with unarmed strikes. So mixing weapon and unarmed attacks is something all monks can do.

Quote:
C) Can a Kasathan Zen Archer Monk wield a bow in two hands, and a temple sword in his other two hands as a one-handed weapon using two-hands, and then use his bow for ranged attacks, and his Temple Sword for attacks of Opportunity? (I am unsure about this, I lean yes, because when he's attacking with the bow, his temple sword is not part of his flurry and can't be, so it's mostly being held in two hands but not wielded, after his flurry, the bow is being held in one hand, and his temple sword is now in his primary and off hand).

I don't see a problem with this either. The sword is not making attacks during the Flurry of Blows, but still lets the kasatha threaten.

Quote:
D) Can a Kasathan Gunslinger wield a musket in two hands, a pistol in a third, and reload using his fourth free hand? (I believe yes, a pistol can be an off-hand weapon, the rifle requires a primary and off-hand, and one off-hand to reload, all seems legit).

I agree yes.

Quote:
E) Can a Kasathan Archer wield two bows, one in each pair of arms? (I lean Yes, but with a caveat, it is possible to switch primary and off-hand as a free action per FAQs, so as long as the Kasathan is not gaining more than base iterative attacks, I see no reason why he can't attack with Bow 1, free action to switch primary hand to Bow 2, fire with Bow 2, and keep going until he's out of iteratives, I can only see this useful if you're using something like a fire bow in one set of hands and an ice bow in the other, and you realize fire is healing the target).

I don't see why you could not only do this, but TWF with bows.

Quote:
F) Can a Kasathan Fighter wield a polearm in one pair of hands, and a bastard sword in the other pair of hands, and threaten at reach and at 5 feet? How about if he's wielding the BS in one hand with EWP? (I lean No on the first, because he has only one primary and therefore can't use the same primary on both weapons at the same time, he can only switch the primary as a free action when he has free actions, On the second half I say yes, for the same reason a monk can do the same thing, they have a short range weapon not using the primary hand).

I say yes in to the first and second. If the Bastard Sword is used for attacks during the round, you are TWF. If it isn't you still wield a weapon and threaten. Two hands martial or one hand exotic is the same thing. You are wielding the weapon.


I'd evaluate it as follows:

A) Spell Combat requires a single light or one-handed weapon to be used for all attacks while the other hand casts spells. You could wield whatever incidental weapons you want in the other two hands (including a 2-h weapon), but you cannot use them/it as part of the Spell Combat action.

B) Yes, but a Monk can make unarmed strikes at any time whether they are two-armed, four-armed, or even no-armed (body-slam ftw). But a Flurry of Blows can use the same weapon for both the main-hand and off-hand attacks so this isn't even necessary, especially if you're leveraging the power attack bonus damage for two-handing the temple sword.

C) Yes. Just carrying the weapon doesn't necessitate it being used in attacks. If I had a Longsword in one hand and a Mace in the other, I could make all my iterative attacks with the longsword, but still make AoOs with the either mace or longsword.

D) Don't see why not. Just keep in mind that one-handed firearms aren't light weapons so you don't trigger the "light off-hand reduced penalty".

E) This one is a little more iffy because it involves wielding a two-handed weapon with two off-hands rather than main+off. There's no such thing as "switching main and off-hands". If you have 3 iterative attacks with your main-hand (assisted by off-hand A), then your two other off-hands (B and C) will only be able to fire a single arrow since each off-hand only provides for a single attack. Conversely, if you're not going above your iterative attack allowance, there's no such thing as main or off-hands. You can wield a longsword in one hand and a mace in the other and, with 3 iterative attacks, you can make 3 attacks with any combo of those weapons (and others if you want to use unarmed strike, boot blade, etc). You don't trigger TWF penalties and all these attacks get full Str to damage; none of them are off-hand attacks. Likewise, if you had two Bows and 3 iterative attacks, you could fire up to 3 arrows using any combination of the two Bows (we'll presume they have different enchantments (ie. bane, flaming, etc) that may make them more or less effective against certain targets). Neither weapon in this case is considered main-hand nor off-hand.

F) Just as you can threaten with a weapon you hadn't used in your turn's attack sequence (ie. if you wield a Greatsword, but you double-moved on your turn, you still threaten with it), whether the weapon is in your main-hand or off-hand is inconsequential to whether you threaten with it. The issue, as with question E above, is adjudicating multiweapon combat using two 2-h weapons. If you have 3 iterative attacks for your main-hand and three additional hands each of which giving one off-hand attack, then you could make your 3 iterative attacks with the polearm, subsuming one of the off-hands to assist in wielding it, but the other two off-hands share a single attack which they both spend on using the Bastard Sword two-handed for a single strike. Since it's both an off-hand attack and a two-handed attack, the str bonus would be 1x because of "pathfinder addition"; 1.5x + (1 - 0.5x) = 1.5x -0.5x = 1.0x Str bonus to damage. Or, another way to look at it is that while a normal 2-h attack combines the 1x Str of your main-hand with the 1/2x Str of the off-hand, the off-hand 2-h attack is combining 1/2x with 1/2x to get 1x Str.

G) I concur, I see no reason not to be able to do this since each arm is supposed to contribute a single off-hand attack. By contrast, you shouldn't be able to wield a longsword in one hand and a dagger in the other, take your iterative attacks with the longsword, then 3 off-hand attacks with the single dagger. You could however, subsume one "hand-associated" off-hand attack to make a non-hand-associated off-hand attack (ie. with a Boot Blade, Unarmed Strike, etc). In the case of a specific wielded weapon (Boot Blade), you'd have to use a different weapon for each off-hand attack to analogue with using different arms (ie. one attack with boot blade, one with boulder helmet, etc). Unarmed Strike, however, is entirely abstracted and has no such limitation since you have an mechanically unlimited number of body parts to strike with (the same reason why you can TWF with solely unarmed strikes).

H) I'd lean towards 'yes' also; each feat only gives one extra off-hand attack, not one per arm.

I) I brought this up earlier in question F; you could use two two-handed weapons, but one of them only gets a single off-hand attack using the single attack provided by each of two limbs. You don't even need the MWP feat for this as the feat simply reduces the penalties. So, with 3 iterative attacks, you could swing a Greatsword 3 times along with a Bastard Sword 1 time.

J) I'd say yes, provided you've reached the level that grants this ability. And even then, it's just letting you attack at -2/-2/-2/-2 rather than -4/-4/-4/-4. Also, semantically speaking, it'd be wield a BS in each of four hands. Wielding a BS in all four hands means one sword with 4 hands holding it.

K) This is where it gets tricky. Firstly, remember that TWF doesn't let you take your single standard off-hand attack, it merely brings the penalties down from "ridiculous" to "still ridiculous but circumstantially useful". Also, bear in mind that a Monk gets to use the same weapon for their flurry. While for a two-armed character, this is nice, a four-armed character with 3 extra attacks from flurry being able to use a Temple Sword for all 4 starting attacks with bonus damage from Power Attack might be just a touch... b%#+%%$ insane. And it only gets better from there, unlike the scenario with several natural attacks which eventually falls into step with iterative damage output. So I'd say, no; Flurry of Blows gives you an extra attack as if using TWF. You can replace any of these attacks with a single Unarmed Strike (which is abstracted so can be used with any body part or even a completely undeclared body part).

L) Barring free action limits and presuming he is able to reload as a free action, no problem, he can absolutely do this. Cinematically speaking, he fires one pistol, then while firing the second, he's fiddling with the first one, then while firing the third, he's fiddling with the second, then lastly, he's fiddling with the third as he takes iterative attacks with the first pistol again; he's probably skilled enough to reload without looking so he can focus on firing or, alternatively, he's focusing on re-loading and "firing from the hip" so to speak.

M) If it actually gives you TWF as a bonus feat (ie. two-weapon ranger combat style), you'd replace TWF with MWF as appropriate. A class feature like Flurry of Blows which emulates TWF and cannot be combined with TWF, however, I'd say is not a valid swap for reasons I provided in question K.

Of course, this is all presuming your table is allowing for the TWF>MWF swap. If not, then, while you could hold weapons in your other hands, your attack allowance would be based on two hands. For example, you could have an +3 Orc Bane weapon in hand A, a +3 Holy weapon in hand B, a +5 weapon in hand C, and a Revolver in hand D and, with, say, 5 iterative attacks, you could make up to 5 attacks with any combination of those four weapons plus non-handed weapons you have available (ie. Unarmed Strikes), but if your table isn't allowing MWF, you still only pick one of them to use as an off-hand weapon if you decide to use TWF to go over that 5 attack allowance.


Quote:
G) Can a Kasathan wield a two-handed weapon in one pair of arms, wear a shield on arm 3, and wield a knife in arm 4, and still attack with the Two-Handed weapon + shield bash (offhand) and then off-hand with the knife? (I say yes, he does not violate the two-handed/spiked armor FAQ because he's losing one of his off-hand attacks to get the 1.5 str mod on the two-handed weapon).

Yes. I don't see how that would be different than a greatsword and 2 short swords. One attack per limb (greatsword takes 2 limbs).

Quote:
H) Can a Kasathan with MWF taking Improved & Greater Two Weapon Fighting? (I lean yes, because the feat says it 'replaces' two weapon fighting for multi-armed opponents. This still only gives one additional off-hand attack, same as for a two-armed character. There's no other reason for this line in the feat otherwise).

RAW, I lean to no. But my own opinion is yes you should be able to, for exactly the reason you state. MWF replaces TWF. There is no Improved/Greater MWF. But then the question is do you get one additional attack with each off hand, or only one more attack period to be made with any off hand.

Quote:
I) Can a Kasathan with MWF wield two two-handed weapons and two-weapon fight with them? (I lean No, since he still has only one primary hand, although theoretically he can switch that primary as a free action, so I'm conflicted. He's still giving up off-hand attacks to do so, and maintaining the 1.5 str multiplier unwritten rule the FAQ brought up).

I would say yes. I would say the "off hand" rules for damage (Str bonus and PA) apply to the off hand two-handed weapon since it is still off hand even though two-handed.

Quote:
J) Can a Kasathan Two-Weapon Fighter Archetype and the EWP (Bastard Sword) (or Katana) wield a BS (or Katana) in all four hands and attack normally with each (other than the -2 for MWF)? (I say yes, because the two-weapon fighter archetype says he treats a one-handed weapon as light for his off-and, and EWP says BS/Katana is a one-handed weapon)

To clarify, could a Kasatha Two-Weapon Fighter archetype with EWP Bastard sword wield four Bastard sword with penalties of using light off hand weapons? Yes. I think your phrasing of "normally (other than penalty)" is a bit confusing.

Quote:
K) Does a Kasathan Monk with MWF add 2 additional unarmed strikes to his flurry of blows? Or, does he even need to do this since the Monk Flurry references TWF (Which MWF replaces for multi-armed characters)? (I honestly have no idea. From a balance standpoint, I don't see the monk getting his extra off-hands being any more powerful than a two-weapon fighter archetype getting his for MWF. RAW it's murky though.)

No, monks can't TWF while flurrying, so a kasatha can't MWF while flurrying.

Quote:
L) If a Kasathan Gunslinger has 3 double barreled pistols, one in Primary, and one each in two of his off-hands, and he can reload one barrel as a free action (and assuming there's no free action limit in place), can he reload all 3 pistols as free actions using his free hand? (I want to say NO, but it'd have to be a free action limit, which I don't like to do given how murky that gets)

Yes, assuming there is no limit on free actions.

Quote:
M) If an archetype or class gives two-weapon fighting as a feature, does the Kasathan instead get MWF? (Similar to K above, but because Monk uses the 'like twf' and it isn't 'twf' I wanted to break it out. On this one, I'm much more confident it's a Yes, the MWF says it replaces TWF for multi-armed characters).

I would say RAW no, but that is how it should work.


Per the recent FAQ on Bastard Swords and Handedness, a One-Handed weapon can be used in two-hands but is still a one-Handed Weapon. With that clarification, how does everyone feel on (A) above :

A Clarification) Magus wields long sword (one-handed weapon) in two hands, wear shield on third arm, and has fourth arm free? To clarify the Magus power :

Magus wrote:


Spell Combat (Ex): At 1st level, a magus learns to cast spells and wield his weapons at the same time. This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast. To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand. As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard action (any attack roll made as part of this spell also takes this penalty). If he casts this spell defensively, he can decide to take an additional penalty on his attack rolls, up to his Intelligence bonus, and add the same amount as a circumstance bonus on his concentration check. If the check fails, the spell is wasted, but the attacks still take the penalty. A magus can choose to cast the spell first or make the weapon attacks first, but if he has more than one attack, he cannot cast the spell between weapon attacks.

Note that a long sword is a one-handed weapon (even when wielded in two hands, it doesn't become a two-handed weapon, only BS/Katana/Dwarven Waraxe can change category and only with EWP). He has a free hand to cast the spell with. The power is written from the perspective of a two-armed creature. Most things in the book are, so we have to be careful about how we interpret those for four or more armed races.


Depends on semantics. "...while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand." Hand is singular here, but that may just be a result of the presumption of a two-handed character to save space. However, considering that the weapon used must be hand-associated since you can't even use a Boot Blade or a Tail natural attack, I'd say the manner in which you wield the designated weapon when utilizing Spell Combat is specific enough that it's more about dividing your concentration between spellcasting and melee fighting that is driving the distinction. Coordinating a competent melee attack while simultaneously bending the laws of reality to your whim is hard enough as is; throwing in a third hand to keep track of may just be the proverbial star that broke the camel's back. There are also matters of balance; when you attack two-handed, you're putting more force and weight into the attack while using the weapon one-handed better promotes fast, precise strikes which won't jostle you too much while trying to very carefully make the hand gestures and say the words and think the thoughts that will set someone's face on fire. So I'd lean more on the side of interpreting the singular use of "hand" as pertinent rather than incidental.


Reality is not a very good fallback argument. I don't know many people who can wear 50lbs of steel armor, wield a great sword (15 lbs) and then swing it 4 times in 6 seconds with any degree of accuracy. :)

Yes it's complicated, but that's besides the point from a rules perspective.

The question would be, is the power written from a biased perspective (2 armed PCs) or is it written with 4 arm PCs in mind?

If you believe the former, then the magus build I posited as part of the question should be valid. If you believe the latter, you would need to justify (IMHO anyway) why the class would take four arm PCs into account about a year before the option became available.


Give it some time and they will FAQ this to hell as well. ;)


PoisonToast wrote:
Give it some time and they will FAQ this to hell as well. ;)

LOL, there's only a few that I think really need FAQs. Mostly the 'MWF/TWF' with Improved/Greater TWF and Monk flurry MWF/TWF questions.


mdt wrote:
PoisonToast wrote:
Give it some time and they will FAQ this to hell as well. ;)
LOL, there's only a few that I think really need FAQs. Mostly the 'MWF/TWF' with Improved/Greater TWF and Monk flurry MWF/TWF questions.

Personally I don't see the issue with RAW not allowing you to use MWF as a replacement for the requirements of ITWF and GTWF as its stated right on the feat "Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms."

As the character description states that you have one primary and 3 off-hand you would only get one extra attack from the feats with an off-hand of your choice.

I would also assume that because of the "Special" ruling on MWF, MWF qualifies you for ANY feat that requires TWF as a prerequisite.

I could easily be wrong but I haven't seen anything yet that tells me otherwise...


PoisonToast wrote:
mdt wrote:
PoisonToast wrote:
Give it some time and they will FAQ this to hell as well. ;)
LOL, there's only a few that I think really need FAQs. Mostly the 'MWF/TWF' with Improved/Greater TWF and Monk flurry MWF/TWF questions.

Personally I don't see the issue with RAW not allowing you to use MWF as a replacement for the requirements of ITWF and GTWF as its stated right on the feat "Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms."

As the character description states that you have one primary and 3 off-hand you would only get one extra attack from the feats with an off-hand of your choice.

I would also assume that because of the "Special" ruling on MWF, MWF qualifies you for ANY feat that requires TWF as a prerequisite.

I could easily be wrong but I haven't seen anything yet that tells me otherwise...

Oh, I agree, otherwise the special entry is useless.

However, anytime this comes up, there's a landslide of 'NO YOU CANNOT TAKE ITWF/GTWF WITH MWF YOU CHEESE HEAD LOSER' posts. So I think short of an FAQ entry it'll keep going around and around on the boards with a lot of 'uh huh'/'nuh uh' arguments.


mdt wrote:

Oh, I agree, otherwise the special entry is useless.

However, anytime this comes up, there's a landslide of 'NO YOU CANNOT TAKE ITWF/GTWF WITH MWF YOU CHEESE HEAD LOSER' posts. So I think short of an FAQ entry it'll keep going around and around on the boards with a lot of 'uh huh'/'nuh uh' arguments.

I can totally see them having to step in on this and clerify what the "special" ruling in MWF means.

Its a good thing my group respects the acting DM interpretation of the rules (whoever it may be) as issues come up and come up with ruling solutions over email or after sessions as a team.

I usually find that if it sounds reasonable and not clearly contradicted by the RAW, it should be allowed.


Improved Two-Weapon Fighting (Combat)
You are skilled at fighting with two weapons.

Prerequisites: Dex 17, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +6.

Benefit: In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with it, albeit at a –5 penalty.

Normal: Without this feat, you can only get a single extra attack with an off-hand weapon.

It says an off-hand weapon. A kasatha has three off-hands, therefore as I read it has one extra attack with each off-handweapon if he takes this feat.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Jever wrote:

Improved Two-Weapon Fighting (Combat)

You are skilled at fighting with two weapons.

Prerequisites: Dex 17, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +6.

Benefit: In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with it, albeit at a –5 penalty.

Normal: Without this feat, you can only get a single extra attack with an off-hand weapon.

It says an off-hand weapon. A kasatha has three off-hands, therefore as I read it has one extra attack with each off-handweapon if he takes this feat.

It's unreasonable to have that interpretation because the feat's context lies with fighting with two weapons. Hence "two-weapon fighting."


Except that "two-weapon fighting" only applies to certain circumstances of fighting with two weapons while other circumstances don't involve TWF rules at all. For example, with 3 iterative attacks, I can use any combination of weapons at my disposal including, but not limited to, a weapon in any hand (up to as many hands as I possess), boulder helmet, boot blade, unarmed strike, armor spikes, etc and, so long as the total doesn't exceed 3 attacks and they are done in sequential iterative order, it is not using the Two-Weapon Fighting rules. None of the attacks are off-hand attacks and I suffer no penalties. Only designating an off-hand weapon and taking TWF penalties for the purpose of gaining additional attacks above BAB allowance qualifies as TWF. Therefore, since Multiweapon Fighting replaces Two-Weapon Fighting for applicable races, it's quite reasonable to say that for such a race, the ITWF feat's prereq line is changed from:

"Prerequisites: Dex 17, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +6."
to
"Prerequisites: Dex 17, Multiweapon Fighting, base attack bonus +6."

and applies as expected. And it still only gives one additional attack with one of your off-hand weapons, not all of them.


H. By the special line MWF replaces TWF, but it doesn't specify it qualifies as TWF for the purposes of prerequisites so you wouldn't qualify for improved or greater TWF. The purpose of the by-line is to clarify you can't take TWF. Shouldn't be a problem since having MWF gives you the equivalent of improved and greater TWF, granted at a bigger penalty but also at a much lower level.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

wingman wrote:
H. By the special line MWF replaces TWF, but it doesn't specify it qualifies as TWF for the purposes of prerequisites so you wouldn't qualify for improved or greater TWF. The purpose of the by-line is to clarify you can't take TWF. Shouldn't be a problem since having MWF gives you the equivalent of improved and greater TWF, granted at a bigger penalty but also at a much lower level.

The "special" line indicates that MWF replaces TWF for multiple-armed characters. For a Kasatha, the TWF feat does not exist -- there is only MWF. Anytime a rule references the TWF feat, the MWF feat applies instead. This also means abilities like flurry of blows work like MWF for Kasatha, which is why the monk class was very popular for the Thri-Kreen race in 3.5e.

The "special" line in feats tend to be very meta like this. The entire point of the Multiweapon Fighting feat (and its special effect) is to patch the rules for multiple-armed creatures since rules as written assume the character has only two hands.


3.5 included the same special line for MWF yet also had improved MWF and greater MWF as feats with identical special lines respectively.

This feat replaces the Two Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than 2 arms.

One could argue that replacing the TWF feat for the character does not adjust the prerequisites of feats he does not have.
Without clarification from Paizo no definite answer can be given, so house rule it. But don't be surprised if your DM shoots down a 6th level fighter with 8 attacks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Or, they decided that they don't need redundant feats of IMWF and GMWF when MWF already replaces the applicable prerequisites. One could argue that replacing TWF with MWF doesn't adjust the prerequisites of other feats, but that'd be a fallacy since MWF doesn't specify that it replaces TWF for feats you have; it says it replaces TWF, full_stop. That's all-inclusive by default and if you think otherwise, you must present a counter-example for it to be a valid argument. No definite answer can be given, but none is really needed in this case because A) The feat doesn't 'not' work and B) following the context of the rules, one can arrive at a valid conclusion with no extant counter-example. Thus, it is the conclusion that requires the fewest unnecessary assumptions to which one must default; MWF replaces TWF wholesale for applicable races, including prerequisites based on TWF.


Given the vitriol surrounding anything regarding Vestigial Arms over the past couple years, I'm pretty confident that they didn't print IMWF and GMWF because they are opposed to that type of power, period.

ITWF and GTWF do exactly what they say, add a single additional attack at the comparable iterative your main hand gets. But I would expect MWF to qualify as a prerequisite since most people seem to think it prevents those races from even picking up TWF if they wanted to.


Furthermore, ITWF isn't the only feat that has TWF as a prerequisite. Would one claim that MWF doesn't qualify one to take any of the following:

Bashing Finish
Break Guard
Dorn-Dergar Master
Double Bane
Double Slice
Pinpoint Poisoner
Shield Slam
Two-Weapon Defense
Two-Weapon Feint

All of those also list TWF as a prerequisite so if MWF doesn't count as a prereq for ITWF, it also wouldn't count as a prerequisite for any of those. Does that sound even remotely reasonable?


Kazaan: Yes, for probably all of them. What does Pinpoint Poisoner do?

Anyway, much less controversial with a Kasatha but still cool combinations would be either a longbow or a reach two-handed weapon with two light weapons in order to either be able to full attack with a bow and still threaten in melee, or to threaten at 10' with the polearm and 5' with the light weapons.

There's probably some fun things you could do with (a) whip(s) too.

EDIT: with a reach 2-handed weapon in two hands, a light melee weapon in one off-hand, and a scorpion whip in the other off-hand, you can attack at 15, 10, and/or 5 feet.


PRD wrote:

Pinpoint Poisoner:

Prerequisites: Poison use class feature, Craft (alchemy) 6 ranks, Adder Strike, Improved Unarmed Strike, Two-Weapon Fighting or flurry of blows class feature.
Benefit: When you use Adder Strike, you can instead poison up to two blowgun darts that you can then use to strike your opponent in melee. (Drawing such darts is a free action.) While holding these darts, you can spend a standard action to attack with one or a full-attack action to attack with both. Such attacks are considered melee touch attacks that deal 1d2 damage plus any bonuses you gain on your normal unarmed strike damage, and they deliver the poison. You can instead throw such darts as if they were shuriken, making your ranged attack rolls against the target's AC.
---
Adder Strike:
Prerequisites:
Poison use class feature, Craft (alchemy) 1 rank, Improved Unarmed Strike.
Benefit: As a swift action, you can apply one dose of contact or injury poison to two body parts that you use for unarmed strikes. You must still protect yourself against exposure to contact poisons you apply in this way.


I've switched my view of the rules on this one. If TWF is really replaced by MWF, it ought to be replaced in all ways, including as a requirement. So the ITWF feat chain should be accessible and allow two more extra attacks.

Kazaan's argument about feats like Double Slice convinced me--it makes little sense to disallow such feats, but if one doesn't then there's no real grounds for disallowing the ITWF feat chain.


Too late to edit, but that's what I meant, it was late last night so I misread. Those feats all seem fine with MWF. ITWF and GTWF would each allow one extra attack with any of the off-hand weapons at incrementing -5 penalties.

So what would the final BAB 20 MWF ITWF GTWF attack routine look like (Light weapons and +0 str mod for simplicity)? +18/+18/+18/+18/+13/+13/+8/+8/+3?


That looks correct. To break it down completely:
+18 (main-hand first iterative)
+18 (off-hand A standard)
+18 (off-hand B standard)
+18 (off-hand C standard)

+13 (main-hand second iterative)
+13 (off-hand ITWF)

+8 (main-hand third iterative)
+8 (off-hand GTWF)

+3 (main-hand fourth iterative)


Yes, that is what I was envisioning myself Kazaan. It seems to be within the rules as printed.

I'm just concerned about the unwritten rules about handedness. :(


I prefer not to concern myself with unwritten rules. : D It makes life easier.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I do too,
Until they start getting used as the reason for RAW not working per RAW, then I get upset, because the only way to have the unwritten rules on my shelf is to kidnap a developer, put him in a cage in the wall, and have his head stick through like a trophy on the shelf.

Obviously this represents quite a few challenges, legal, moral, and logistical.

:)

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

mdt wrote:

Yes, that is what I was envisioning myself Kazaan. It seems to be within the rules as printed.

I'm just concerned about the unwritten rules about handedness. :(

This is always a problem when trying to take a rule and optimize it for the most effective use.

More often than not you will run into unwritten rules that you can see/touch/feel if you look at the system without the eye to optimize corner cases.

In other words, the unwritten rule of "you can't get too much STR bonus with extra hands" should be obvious based on all the written cases where you don't get as much STR to damage as you would like.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Yeah, it makes sense that the feats would work for MWF. The entire point of the "special" line on MWF is to "patch" the game for multi-armed creatures since the rules assume characters have only two arms.

blahpers wrote:
I prefer not to concern myself with unwritten rules. : D It makes life easier.

Yeah, unwritten rules can give headaches. Though, all the unwritten rules about handedness are large enough to be its own chapter in the CRB.


James Risner wrote:

This is always a problem when trying to take a rule and optimize it for the most effective use.

More often than not you will run into unwritten rules that you can see/touch/feel if you look at the system without the eye to optimize corner cases.

In other words, the unwritten rule of "you can't get too much STR bonus with extra hands" should be obvious based on all the written cases where you don't get as much STR to damage as you would like.

Since there is nothing in the rules stating this, prior to the FAQ, nor even hinting at it, I disagree vociferously.

Things that are obvious are things like 'You cannot take actions if you are dead'.

Things that require an FAQ and 1800 post threads are not obvious. </full stop>

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

mdt wrote:
I disagree vociferously.

Unfortunately we are on the opposite sides of this issue. With identical conviction. ;-(

Grand Lodge

mdt wrote:

I do too,

Until they start getting used as the reason for RAW not working per RAW, then I get upset, because the only way to have the unwritten rules on my shelf is to kidnap a developer, put him in a cage in the wall, and have his head stick through like a trophy on the shelf.

Obviously this represents quite a few challenges, legal, moral, and logistical.

:)

Careful, as vocal opponent of unwritten rules being a reason for rulings, I must warn you that the possibility of censorship is high.

You will be accused of horrible things, you have never done.

So, continue to carry your big stick fellow believer, but walk softly.


*shrug*

Unless something is understood by 90% of the people asked, correctly, then it's not 'Obvious'.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

mdt wrote:
Unless something is understood by 90% of the people asked, correctly, then it's not 'Obvious'.

I'd wager the 90 % read it as only applying to TWF penalties, so *shrug*


Kazaan wrote:

That looks correct. To break it down completely:

+18 (main-hand first iterative)
+18 (off-hand A standard)
+18 (off-hand B standard)
+18 (off-hand C standard)

+13 (main-hand second iterative)
+13 (off-hand ITWF)

+8 (main-hand third iterative)
+8 (off-hand GTWF)

+3 (main-hand fourth iterative)

Sort of. Multiweapon Fighting says it reduces the penalties of main hand attacks by 2 (from 6) and off-hand attacks by 6 (from 10). Not really sure if the details from Two-Weapon Fighting about a light off-hand weapon should be considered 'included'. IMHO, it would be more balanced as "-4 to all" (and the RAW seem to suggest that so; these are two different feats), though its an arguable translation to treat it as TWF.


i'm glad to see someone else brought this discussion back again.

I don't see why any of the OP's described builds would not work. so long as you have the main-hand/Off-hand economy to accomplish what you are trying to so, there should be nothing stopping you from doing it except penalties applied as appropriate.

the real issue is weather or not MWF qualifies you for other feats the same as TWF would, but alas, we need enough ppl to FAQ this. perhaps i will start a new thread and post ONLY this question...

as to what Kazaan said:

Kazaan wrote:
A) Spell Combat requires a single light or one-handed weapon to be used for all attacks while the other hand casts spells. You could wield whatever incidental weapons you want in the other two hands (including a 2-h weapon), but you cannot use them/it as part of the Spell Combat action.

where exactly in spell combat does it say that i CANT take other iterative attacks with my other 2 hands that i'm allowed to take with my full attack action? a Kasatha would get a full attack action as follows at BAB6 with MWF:

Mainhand +4
Off-hand 1 +4
off-hand 2 +4
Off-hand 3 +4
Mainhand +1

if i had 3 shortswords in 3 hands and were spell combating it would look as follows:
Spell +2 (delivered via mainhand with Spellstrike, of course)
Mainhand +2
Offhand 1 +2
Offhand 2 +2
Mainhand -1
Offhand 3 (free for spell combat)

what you described suggests that i could not take those off-hand attacks while spell combating...why?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Some things to keep in mind.

Another thread had mentioned this, I shall again. The Special line refers to TWF to supersede it if the character has both feats. TWF can still be taken by the Kasatha and it is TWF that will qualify for the other feats that require it.

He still only has one Main hand, so no double wielding two-handed weapons. They need a Main and Off hand to use. When TWF with a two-handed weapon, your still only getting 1.0 times str mod damage.

MWF is still a GM call for availability, though aside from PFS, I don't see a GM denying the taking of the feat.

When Spell Combating or TWF, other hands can be holding potions, ranged weapons (as the OP suggested) or other useful things.

I still want some clarification on how FoBs would work with a multi-armed race.

Grand Lodge

There still is no hard rule against using two-handed weapons whilst two weapon fighting.

Even the Armor Spikes FAQ does not completely remove the option.

Do not quote unwritten rules as RAW.


Shimesen wrote:
where exactly in spell combat does it say that i CANT take other iterative attacks with my other 2 hands that i'm allowed to take with my full attack action?

Try getting up to date on the FAQs. I'll give you a hint, FAQs regarding Magus are in the Ultimate Magic FAQ page. This is pretty standard stuff and it's common sense that if someone brings up a rule that isn't obvious from the books, it's probably a good idea to check the FAQs next before questioning it.


I've read that FAQ back to front. Nowhere does it state that you can't take complete full attack in conjunction with spell combat so long as you can fulfill the off-hand requirements to do so. The FAQ, just as the rules, is written under the assumption that you only have one off-hand, which is being used to cast the spell. In this case you have two more, fully capable of making other attacks in a full attack action.


proof that you CAN use two-weapon fighting in conjunction with spellcombat (and thus also use multi-weapon fighting):

Magus FAQ wrote:

Magus, Spell Combat: If I use spell combat, how many weapon attacks can I make?

You can make as many weapon attacks as you would normally be able to make if you were making a full attack with that weapon. For example, if you are an 8th-level magus (BAB +6/+1), you could make two weapon attacks when using spell combat.

Edit 9/9/13: This is a revised ruling about how haste interacts with effects that are essentially a full attack, even though the creature isn't specifically using the full attack action (as required by haste). The earlier ruling implied that spell combat did not allow the extra attack from haste (because spell combat was not using the full attack action).

—Pathfinder Design Team, 09/06/13

one may argue that "with that weapon" part as being definitive of not being able to use 2 or more weapons, but seeing as how this ruling was made to argue being able to use haiste with spell combat, i dont see how attaining additional attacks by any other means (such as having 2 more hands in which you can attack with aside from the one you cast the spell with) wouldn't also fall under this same ruling.


Proof that you cant.


You are misreading that FAQ. Nothing about it stops you using other attacks with an offhand weapon so long as your main hand is using the proper weapon. It doesn't allow you to trade iterative main hand bab attacks for armor spikes, etc. If you have a 3rd or 4th hand, those attacks are granted normally regardless of spell combat. So long as your main hand is using an appropriate weapon, spell combat has no effect on your other off-hands.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

The one he pointed to is the question about other weapons. You specifically have the one weapon (Light or One Handed) in the other hand to make attacks with. The clarification of a full round action below that allows an addition hasted (or other effect) attack with that weapon.


Shimesen wrote:
You are misreading that FAQ. Nothing about it stops you using other attacks with an offhand weapon so long as your main hand is using the proper weapon. It doesn't allow you to trade iterative main hand bab attacks for armor spikes, etc. If you have a 3rd or 4th hand, those attacks are granted normally regardless of spell combat. So long as your main hand is using an appropriate weapon, spell combat has no effect on your other off-hands.

Do you have any earthly idea how big of a can of worms you're opening up here? Don't even go there. You know very well Spell Combat isn't a full-round action and, by default, you must make a full-attack action to get your off-hand attack(s). Spell Combat only lets you make all the attacks with your single light/one-handed weapon that you'd be able to make as if you were making a full-attack. That doesn't include any incidental weapons you may be wielding; just the single weapon you've designated as your "Spell Combat Weapon".


Spell combat isn't a full round action? Really? Perhaps you should reread it...

understandably, im sure you meant that spell combat isn't a full attack action. that being said, you have to keep in mind that when that ability was written, there was no legal way to make another off-hand attack with it while using spell combat because the only off-hand you had available was used to cast the spell. (effectively fighting with two weapons where the off-hand weapon is a spell). however, given that a race now exists that give you 2 additional off-hands, it begs to reason that the described situation within the spell combat text WOULD include the other off-hand attacks you can make with a 4-armed race because its calls out full-attack action within its text.

i won't deny that spell combat is not a full-attack action. its not. BUT, it IS a full round action in which you are "effectively" making a full attack action under the two-weapon fighting rules where your offhand weapon is a spell. so i do not see why your other off-hand attacks could not be made.

on a side note, it seems to me that there simply needs to be an FAQ section for the Kasatha in general, since simply being this race brings up ALOT of can i/cant i issues involving normally unallowed possibilities: such as using 2-handed weapons to two-weapon fight; full attacks while using spell combat; the whole multi-weapon fighting debacle with qualifying for other feats; etc...someone should write an FAQ specifically for the Kasatha race...


Does that mean I could use my off-hands to cast additional spells as well?


Kazaan wrote:
Does that mean I could use my off-hands to cast additional spells as well?

One could argue that point, actually. But given that spellcasting rules state that you can never cast more than one spell a turn without quicken spell or some other specific exception, I would say no. Although given the wording of spell combat and the fact that you have more than one off-hand, I could see the argument.

1 to 50 of 51 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Kasatha & Multi-weapon Fighting Questions All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.