|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where is this FAQ? It's not under the core book.HERE
I can't believe they went to the effort of FAQing and then didn't address this very point. Which this FAQ doesn't prohibit, because it's still just two attacks. I guess the counter point is that this FAQ is stating that a max of two limbs can be used for attacks even with vestigial limbs. It would have been easier if they had not allowed these limbs to attack at all.
Where is he wrong? What part? If you can wield two longswords with two hands, can I wield two longswords with four hands?You cannot attack with a two handed weapon and another weapon (using two weapon fighting) regardless of vestigial arm or not.
So if I cannot wield a greatsword and attack with armor spikes,
But you can wield two greatswords, you are getting an extra attack.
Which is against the rules.It's not an extra attack, and here's why:
What if we each have two longswords instead? You have each one wielded in one hand, I have each one wielded in two hands.
Same number of attacks, so where's the illegality?
You've made a disanalogy that's got you thinking there's an extra attack when there's not.
Both the fighter and the alchemist can make two attacks via TWF. The alchemist is just using beefier weapons to make the same number of attacks. The alchemist isn't getting extra attacks, he's getting extra options of what weapons he can use for the SAME attacks. The fighter has certain weapons that aren't an option for his two attacks, while the alchemist has reduced those restrictions through the cost of class features. But they both get two attacks.
Essentially, you're wrong. But again if the core rule book, FAQ, and SKR don't convince you, I'm certainly not. I fully understand your reasoning (and honestly I allow it in my home games) but by the rules you are wrong.
Yes you can wield two long swords with four hands. You would not get 1.5 Str on both. You would get 1 Str on your primary attack and .5 Str on your off hand attack. I understand a lot of people don't like this rule but surely you at least understand the why by now.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Essentially, you're wrong. But again if the core rule book,
Everything you've cited from the CRB either was something I agreed with or wasn't actually in the CRB.
FAQ,
I haven't contradicted the FAQ.
and SKR don't convince you,
You're actually the one whose ideas conflict with SKR, not me.
It seems that you're having trouble differentiating between the things that those sources actually say and the things that you say that may or may not be true.
|
|
Yes you can wield two long swords with four hands. You would not get 1.5 Str on both. You would get 1 Str on your primary attack and .5 Str on your off hand attack. I understand a lot of people don't like this rule but surely you at least understand the why by now.
Would you allow the same to be true for two greatswords then?
Yes you can wield two long swords with four hands. You would not get 1.5 Str on both. You would get 1 Str on your primary attack and .5 Str on your off hand attack. I understand a lot of people don't like this rule but surely you at least understand the why by now.Would you allow the same to be true for two greatswords then?
I would allow it, yes. The rules do not.
Essentially, you're wrong. But again if the core rule book,Everything you've cited from the CRB either was something I agreed with or wasn't actually in the CRB.
FAQ,I haven't contradicted the FAQ.
and SKR don't convince you,You're actually the one whose ideas conflict with SKR, not me.
It seems that you're having trouble differentiating between the things that those sources actually say and the things that you say that may or may not be true.
So do vestigial arms give you an extra primary hand, an extra off hand, or both?
|
|
So do vestigial arms give you an extra primary hand, an extra off hand, or both?
Vestigial Arm gives you an extra hand. The only addendum is that you cannot use this extra hand to gain a greater number of attacks than you would otherwise be entitled to.
As an aside, because of where you are going with this, a greatsword requires two hands to use. It does NOT require a primary hand plus an off hand. It requires two hands.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
So do vestigial arms give you an extra primary hand, an extra off hand, or both?
Each one gives you an extra "hand"; its designation as primary or off depends on how you use it, as is already the case for your natural arms. (As described in the Combat chapter of the CRB and further detailed in this FAQ, you can flip-flop which physical arm/weapon is your "primary hand" or "off hand" from round to round as you see fit; I see no reason it would be any different for "hands" gained from Vestigial Arms.)
So do vestigial arms give you an extra primary hand, an extra off hand, or both?Essentially, you're wrong. But again if the core rule book,Everything you've cited from the CRB either was something I agreed with or wasn't actually in the CRB.
FAQ,I haven't contradicted the FAQ.
and SKR don't convince you,You're actually the one whose ideas conflict with SKR, not me.
It seems that you're having trouble differentiating between the things that those sources actually say and the things that you say that may or may not be true.
Vestigial Arm gives you an extra hand. The only addendum is that you cannot use this extra hand to gain a greater number of attacks than you would otherwise be entitled to.
As an aside, because of where you are going with this, a greatsword requires two hands to use. It does NOT require a primary hand plus an off hand. It requires two hands.
Which tells me you have not read the CRB pg 141 I keep mentioning. Attacks take effort, represented in the game as primary hand and off hand. These terms do not mean physical hands. You could attack with a long sword in your primary hand and kick with your off hand. You could kick with your primary hand and attack with armor spikes with your off hand. Vestigial arm does not give an extra hand worth of effort. But obviously you're not going to listen to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So do vestigial arms give you an extra primary hand, an extra off hand, or both?Each one gives you an extra "hand"; its designation as primary or off depends on how you use it, as is already the case for your natural arms. (As described in the Combat chapter of the CRB and further detailed in this FAQ, you can flip-flop which physical arm/weapon is your "primary hand" or "off hand" from round to round as you see fit; I see no reason it would be any different for "hands" gained from Vestigial Arms.)
Now it's my turn: Show me in the discovery where it says you get an extra "hand" worth of effort. Bonus points if it says you can choose whether you get an extra primary or off hand.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Vestigial arm does not give an extra hand worth of effort.
But why?
The actual text of Vestigial Arm says the opposite.
SKR acknowledges that spending extra resources can increase your number of "hands" (for effort/damage purposes).
So on what do you base your claim that Vestigial Arm works contrary to how its own text says it works and how SKR says the game can work?
From the Core Rulebook, p. 141.
Two-Handed: Two hands are required to wield a two-handed melee weapon effectively.I have it in front of me.
Now, to put every thing in context, what does it say about light and one handed weapons directly before that...
Vestigial arm does not give an extra hand worth of effort.But why?
The actual text of Vestigial Arm says the opposite.
SKR acknowledges that spending extra resources can increase your number of "hands" (for effort/damage purposes).So on what do you base your claim that Vestigial Arm works contrary to how its own text says it works and how SKR says the game can work?
Because of the way the game mechanics work. SKR has explicitly mentioned this very thing not being allowed. It was quoted in this thread. How you read that as supporting your argument is beyond me.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now it's my turn: Show me in the discovery where it says you get an extra "hand" worth of effort. Bonus points if it says you can choose whether you get an extra primary or off hand.So do vestigial arms give you an extra primary hand, an extra off hand, or both?Each one gives you an extra "hand"; its designation as primary or off depends on how you use it, as is already the case for your natural arms. (As described in the Combat chapter of the CRB and further detailed in this FAQ, you can flip-flop which physical arm/weapon is your "primary hand" or "off hand" from round to round as you see fit; I see no reason it would be any different for "hands" gained from Vestigial Arms.)
You don't get a turn until you've read the post you asked for. Your second sentence proves you haven't, as I already addressed the primary/off issue on a system-wide level (with a link, even).
You've also proven that you're either not reading or deliberately ignoring my previous posts, as I've already talked repeatedly about the very thing you're now asking me to show you.
If you wouldn't acknowledge it before, why would I think repeating it for the 4th-ish time would be different?
But because I suspect that not repeating myself would be taken as some kind of admission of what I've already cited not really existing, here we go:
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). The arm can manipulate or hold items as well as the alchemist's original arms (for example, allowing the alchemist to use one hand to wield a weapon, another hand to hold a potion, and the third hand to throw a bomb).
(Bolding mine.)
The arm can wield weapons, it's fully under his control, and—here's the kicker—it works just as well as the alchemist's original arms.
It works "as well as the alchemist's original arms".
The alchemist's original arms, when used two-per-sword, increase his damage bonus. And his new arm works as well as that.
It's right there.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
SKR has explicitly mentioned this very thing not being allowed.
No, he hasn't.
He has mentioned it not having been the original intent. He has not said it's not allowed.
Every time he has talked about how the rules actually work/what's actually allowed, the mechanics he's set forth have failed to disallow this in any way.
You really need to start reading things fully and not just skimming them.
How you read that as supporting your argument is beyond me.
This is another example about how you need to start reading what people actually say. I never said that the comment you're referring to supports my argument. I said that a different comment about Double Slice supported one part of a specific point I was making at the time as part of my larger argument.
Please, if you expect to be taken seriously, put forth some minimum effort to show that you're at least playing fair and giving others a fair listen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now it's my turn: Show me in the discovery where it says you get an extra "hand" worth of effort. Bonus points if it says you can choose whether you get an extra primary or off hand.So do vestigial arms give you an extra primary hand, an extra off hand, or both?Each one gives you an extra "hand"; its designation as primary or off depends on how you use it, as is already the case for your natural arms. (As described in the Combat chapter of the CRB and further detailed in this FAQ, you can flip-flop which physical arm/weapon is your "primary hand" or "off hand" from round to round as you see fit; I see no reason it would be any different for "hands" gained from Vestigial Arms.)You don't get a turn until you've read the post you asked for. Your second sentence proves you haven't, as I already addressed the primary/off issue on a system-wide level (with a link, even).
You've also proven that you're either not reading or deliberately ignoring my previous posts, as I've already talked repeatedly about the very thing you're now asking me to show you.
If you wouldn't acknowledge it before, why would I think repeating it for the 4th-ish time would be different?
But because I suspect that not repeating myself would be taken as some kind of admission of what I've already cited not really existing, here we go:
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). The arm can manipulate or hold items as well as the alchemist's original arms (for example, allowing the alchemist to use one hand to wield a weapon, another hand to hold a...
I answered all this. Yes you can wield weapons with it, yes you can alternate attacks with, no you don't get extra effort.
Would you allow a two armed character to attack with a two handed weapon and make an off hand attack with armor spikes? Yes? No? Why?
Jiggy you're getting mad at people for not pedantically dissecting every iota of whats said. If you do that you can get run into the exact same problems.
SKR has explicitly mentioned this very thing not being allowed.No, he hasn't.
He has mentioned it not having been the original intent. He has not said it's not allowed.
Every time he has talked about how the rules actually work/what's actually allowed, the mechanics he's set forth have failed to disallow this in any way.
You really need to start reading things fully and not just skimming them.
How you read that as supporting your argument is beyond me.This is another example about how you need to start reading what people actually say. I never said that the comment you're referring to supports my argument. I said that a different comment about Double Slice supported one part of a specific point I was making at the time as part of my larger argument.
Please, if you expect to be taken seriously, put forth some minimum effort to show that you're at least playing fair and giving others a fair listen.
You know what? Just forget it. I really don't care. I was only trying to discuss the RAW because that's what PFS uses. I have explained it and it really does not affect me if you don't like/believe/understand the rules. I apologize for taking up so much of your time.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I answered all this. Yes you can wield weapons with it, yes you can alternate attacks with, no you don't get extra effort.
No, you haven't answered that. You've simply stated your opinion over and over again without explaining why the text of Vestigial Arm doesn't apply to your opinion. Why don't the rules mean what they plainly say?
Would you allow a two armed character to attack with a two handed weapon and make an off hand attack with armor spikes? Yes? No? Why?
No, because a two-armed character (as explained by SKR and the FAQ) by default has two "hands" worth of oomph for his damage bonuses and used them both on his two-handed weapon.
That's why you need to spend resources (like a feat slot for Double Slice or a class feature for Vestigial Arms) in order to get an extra dose of oomph.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Jiggy you're getting mad at people for not pedantically dissecting every iota of whats said. If you do that you can get run into the exact same problems.
I'm reading Vestigial Arm in plain english. It says it works just as well as your normal arms, which I'm taking to mean it works just as well as your normal arms (i.e., it can do the things your normal arms can do except as otherwise specified).
Where's the pedantic dissection in that? What am I dissecting, and what would be a more plain-english/common sense reading of the part I'm dissecting?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
It would have been easier if they had not allowed these limbs to attack at all.Based on how I read SKR's posts, that's exactly what he intended. But somewhere between naming the ability "vestigial arm" and writing "the arm can manipulate or hold items as well as the alchemist's original arms," some lines got crossed.
If I had to guess, this was design by committee. Someone said, "hey, let's give Alchemist a third arm for holding their chemicals" and someone else said, "how does that help? Screw it, let's make it a fully functional arm," then someone else countered, "but we can't let them get more attacks."
And no one went back and removed the word "vestigial" from the name.
Any method of rules adjudication will lead you sometimes to the correct answer and sometimes to an incorrect answer, but adjudicating according to the name of an ability even when it would contradict its own text is one of the more consistent ways to achieve the latter rather than the former.
I'm pretty sure Tumor Familiar isn't supposed to give you cancer, for instance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm reading Vestigial Arm in plain english.
You're also reading "its not intended to do that" as "its ok go ahead and do that"
I'm pretty sure Tumor Familiar isn't supposed to give you cancer, for instance.
Its benign.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
You're also reading "its not intended to do that" as "its ok go ahead and do that"
Or rather, I don't take "it's not intended to do that" to mean "doing that is not legal".
I don't think it's wrong to take a statement to mean what it says.
Besides, the same guy who said dual-wielding greatswords weren't intended also laid out exactly how the relevant mechanics work, in such a way as to make the dual-wielding greatswords legal.
How SKR said it was intended and how he said it works are in conflict with each other. That means we only have two choices:
We can believe (as I do) that "not intended" simply means "not intended" and that "here's how it works" means "here's how it works", even if that means that how it was originally intended and how it works are not the same thing.
Or, we can believe that how he said it works is not how it works. This is required in order to claim that what he said wasn't intended also isn't legal; we'd have to throw out how he said things work.
I'm not prepared to throw out a designer's explanation of how a mechanic works (and simultanously contradict actual rules, for that matter) in order to reestablish original intent.
Again, how he said it works is in conflict with how he said it was intended. We have to choose one or the other; choosing both is impossible, because they're in direct opposition. It's not a good position to be in to have to choose between function and intent, but that's where we are; and since this is PFS, integrity demands choosing function.
|
Durngrun calls it "effort", I used the term "actions" at one point, and we both rely heavily on the game-defined terms of "primary hand" and "off-hand".
Attacking our terms and asking "where in the CRB is that listed?" isn't going to be useful because, as SKR has said, the unwritten rule is that characters have a primary "hand" and an off "hand".
Period. Full stop.
The FAQ supports this. You cannot attack with a two-handed weapon and another weapon (the example given is Armor Spikes), so you therefore cannot attack with two two-handed weapons.
Period. Full stop.
Vestigial Arms are just as useful as regular arms. Nobody disagrees with this. You can swing a sword, grab/drink a potion, hold a shield, or pick your nose with a third/forth/fiftyith arm just fine.
Period. Full stop.
If a 1st level Fighter attacks with a Boulder Helmet and a Boot Blade, what are his arms free to do? Can they hold items? Check. Can they use a shield? Check. Can they pick his nose? Check. Can they swing a sword?
Nope.
Period. Full stop.
All of the above is rationalized by the unwritten rule that a character is limited to a "primary hand" and an "off-hand", but this does not mean actual hands.
The Vestigial Arm discovery changes none of this. You can't swing four longswords, and you can't use two-weapon fighting with two greatswords.
How is this hard to comprehend?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
you can't use two-weapon fighting with two greatswords.
Why can't one expend resources (in this case, two discoveries) to achieve that? Rules have exceptions, and there's precedent in this game of being able to spend character-build resources (feats, class features, whatever) to be able to achieve exceptions to the standard rules.
... and a rule that's unwritten is, by definition, not "rules as written." So how is an unwritten rule relevant for PFS?
How SKR said it was intended and how he said it works are in conflict with each other
Can you quote what he said for "how he said it works" ? I'm not seeing anything I can parse as your conclusion, and the "unwritten rules" post seems to indicate they are reaaaly trying to put the kybosh on that sort of thing.
|
|
The defense of using the existence of the Double Slice feat is fallacious. SKR calls that feat out as legit, and it has a very narrow purpose of adding extra damage to your off-hand attacks.
That's it, and that's reasonable.
To somehow extrapolate that Double Slice is giving you an extra off-hand is so far out there logically that I slump my head and shoulders when I read it. There is simply no connection.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Attacking our terms and asking "where in the CRB is that listed?" isn't going to be useful because, as SKR has said, the unwritten rule is that characters have a primary "hand" and an off "hand".
Period. Full stop.
With you so far.
The FAQ supports this. You cannot attack with a two-handed weapon and another weapon (the example given is Armor Spikes), so you therefore cannot attack with two two-handed weapons.
Period. Full stop.
Nope, not full stop.
The FAQ does not simply say that you can never TWF with a two-handed weapon. It states the inability to TWF with a 2H weapons as a function of the fact that your off "hand" has been used up. It says that you can run out of "hands" by using them up with a 2H weapon and not have anything left for an off-hand attack.
None of this precludes anyone from gaining more "hands" through the expenditure of resources and therefore not having all of their "hands" used up by the 2H weapon.
SKR reinforces this by repeatedly pointing out that the context of all these "hand" restrictions are with an assumption of a default two-hand PC who hasn't spent extra resources.
There is nothing in the FAQ, rules or commentary that even implies that "you can't TWF with 2H weapons" is some sort of universal constant that never changes no matter how far outside the baseline expectation you are.
Claiming that the FAQ simply says "you can't TWF with a 2H weapon" as a flat, cut-and-dried statement is a misrepresentation. It is not what the FAQ says. The FAQ says that using up all your "hands" on one weapon prevents a second attack.
The Vestigial Arm discovery changes none of this. You can't swing four longswords,
You could if Vestigial Arm didn't explicitly say you didn't gain extra attacks. If the "hands" issue was the reason the alchemist couldn't swing 4 swords, then multi-armed monsters would have the same issue. Congratulations, you just broke the Bestiary.
Normally, more hands also means more "hands" and more attacks. The Vestigial Arm discovery has to go out of its way to make an explicit exception to this by stating "no extra attacks/actions". But it does NOT remove the natural addition of extra "hands".
A 1st-level fighter can TWF with a pair of longswords.
A 4-armed alchemist can TWF with a pair of longswords.
The fighter can put a second hand on a longsword for more damage.
So can the alchemist.
The fighter can only do one of those things at a time because by default he only has two "hands".
The alchemist can do both at once because he's spent resources to exceed the default.
If you say the alchemist can TWF with a couple of two-hand-wielded longswords but not greatswords, you've violated common sense.
If you say the alchemist can TWF with longswords but can't add his spare arms to them for extra damage, you've violated either the Vestigial Arm discovery's text or the Core Rules on one-handed weapons.
To maintain your position, you have to violate something. Which thing is it?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I think you are overlooking a core problem Jiggy,
SKR makes statements about intent which also function as rules for "how it works."
Waitwaitwait. Why does intent "also function as rules"?
Anyway, gimme some time to cite my sources more clearly in relation to some recent questions. I'll be back when I can.
I know we are out of the realm of PFS, and into rules.
But maybe someone can clarify this, so I don't break any rules.
I have a tengu that when he attacks as a full round action has been BOTH swinging his elven curve bladed 2-handed AND using his bite attack.
Is this legal?
I know we are out of the realm of PFS, and into rules.
But maybe someone can clarify this, so I don't break any rules.I have a tengu that when he attacks as a full round action has been BOTH swinging his elven curve bladed 2-handed AND using his bite attack.
Is this legal?
If you've been taking the -5 penalty on the bite attack since it's become secondary, then yep.
They're talking about attacks with manufactured weapons in their back and forth.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, but the bite attack will be treated as a secondary natural attack in that case, and so will have a -5 penalty to the attack roll and only get 1/2 of your strength mod to damage.
That's how I've been running it, but sometimes the more I read these message-boards, the more confused i get.
-thanks
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, here we go.
First of all, please understand that I'm approaching this topic—in particular the commentary from SKR—with a belief that we should be reading everything, reading in plain english, reading for comprehension/big picture, and reading in context.
If anyone believes that's not the best approach, then save yourself some time and don't finish reading this, as it'll be kind of pointless; if my approach is wrong then my entire position is fundamentally flawed and the rest of this post doesn't matter. :)
If instead you agree that this is the best way to approach a designer's discussion of how a mechanic works, then read on! :D
So! I think we're all on the same page that, at least in the case of a standard, unmodified Core PC race, you get a primary and off "hand"—you can either spend them both on a 2H attack or split them up with TWF.
The overall context of the oft-cited SKR post(s) was this: people wanted their unmodified PCs to get extra attacks just by being able to name a body part that hadn't been used yet. We can see this context in these comments from SKR:
• Because if one character uses 2H weapon and is NOT allowed to make an additional attack with armor spikes or a metal gauntlet because his hands are occupied by his 2H weapon, and a different character uses a 2H weapon and IS allowed to make an additional attack with a metal boot because he's not using his hand, that second character is gaining a game mechanics advantage simply by changing the flavorful description of his extra attack's origin from, and that is not good game design."
See how the idea he keeps shooting down is not that you could ever exceed the standard limit at all, but rather that you can't exceed the standard limit without paying for it? (Here's SKR making a sarcastic example of the type of thing he's shooting down.) This is further driven home by the Double Slice comment:
See how there's a difference between breaking the limit for no reason and breaking the limit because you paid for it?
As another example, SKR references that you CAN attack with a barbazu beard and a 2H weapon together because it's paid for by the fact that that weapon provokes an AoO. Once again, the hand limit is a DEFAULT that can be exceeded if you pay for it.
The general theme in SKR's posts is that you can't exceed the default attack paradigm unless you pay for it, NOT that you can't exceed it at all.
If you pay a cost (such as an AoO from a barbazu beard or a feat spent on Double Slice) you can get more out of your attack routine.
This, to me, makes it undeniable that the limit in the oft-cited FAQ is the standard default, NOT an immutable final law. It's the norm, but you can pay for ways to get more. The only thing being shot down is exceeding that paradigm without paying for it.
-----------------------------------
The second major point in all this (after "the FAQ is where you start, not where it ends") is a very understandable point:
Doesn't SKR's statement that it's not intended to dual-wield greatswords via Vestigial Arm also mean that it's not allowed?
The answer is no, it does not mean that.
What was originally intended is not always what becomes the rule. For example, SKR makes another comment about the intent of Vestigial Arm:
"If you mean 'use two hands on one weapon, and use the other arm for a shield,' then yes. Though I wasn't really intending for people to do that, either. :p"
(If you follow the link, you'll see that "then yes" is answering someone's question about legality.)
As you can see, Vestigial Arm allows some things that weren't originally intended. The lack of intent does not equate to lack of legality.
Since we know (and really, should have known even without that last link) that lack of intent does not preclude legality, we have to evaluate the legality of a given topic on its own merits. Intent (where known) is a useful tool for filling in the gaps when we don't know how the rules work, not something to overturn the rules.
So if we can determine how Vestigial Arm interacts with TWF, that's what we've got to go with, even if the answer conflicts with the original intent.
Again, as shown by that last link, it's possible for something not intended to nevertheless be legal.
-----------------------------------------------
So now, our remaining task is to determine whether using extra arms to two-hand more than one weapon is legal. We know it wasn't intended, but we're looking at whether it's legal, which is a different question.
So here's what we know:
• We know (from above) that the limit of one primary and off "hand" is a default that can be exceeded if you pay for it.
• We know that (according to the CRB) putting two hands on a one- or two-handed weapon increases the damage output.
• We know that although Vestigial Arm specifies it doesn't allow extra attacks, it does not list an exception to the aforementioned rule that putting an extra hand on a weapon increases the damage bonus.
So, to put it all together:
Does a four-armed alchemist using TWF have any more attacks than a 1st-level fighter using TWF?
No.
Is a four-armed alchemist using two hands to wield a non-light weapon?
Yes.
Would this cause the alchemist's damage to exceed the baseline paradigm?
Yes.
Has he paid for that privilege?
Yes.
That seems to be all the questions, so it looks to me like it all checks out despite not having been the original intent, just like TWFing while using a shield is legal despite not having been the original intent.
And finally, one last quote from SKR on the subject, and it's a doozy:
There you have it: SKR explicitly saying that you CAN attack with more than two of your arms with VA.