Kasatha, TWF, and 2 handers


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 105 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Hydromancer wrote:
graystone wrote:
Hydromancer wrote:
The creature itself has NOT taken MWF and honestly I don't think any gm's I know of allow the use of monster feats anyways.

This varies wildly as I don't know a dm that wouldn't allow them.

PC's can get winged flight (flyby, hover, wingover and druids can get huge enough for snatch), get multiple natural attacks (Improved Natural Attack, multiattack), natural armor (Improved Natural Armor), SLA (Ability Focus, Empower Spell-Like Ability, Quicken Spell-Like Ability) and awesome blow is already built into the brawler. Even looking at core races/classes, you can get all the abilities to qualify for every one except multiweapon fighting.

Perhaps this is just coming from the DM's I've played with.

I'd still be allowed to take TWF I think unless the DM forced the text of the "MWF replaces TWF" on my character, but at that point I'd withdraw from the campaign if he further disallowed ITWF and GTWF because MWF is not TWF.

Looking at that exact text of MWF, if an alchemist has 2 arms and takes TWF, then gains an extra arm through vestigial arm, he would auto-replace TWF with MWF at that point (even though Vestigial Arms do not allow extra attacks, he still meets the requirements for MWF replacing TWF.)

Oh, I expect it is a personal issue with who we play with. I've heard others online say they'd run into DM that don't allow them before, I've just never personally had it happen.

On the MWF VS TWF, I think they sidestepped the issue of how the improved/greater version work with MWF by giving them two Two Handed Weapons.

As MWF with Vestigial Arms, they can't take it because of the normal section of the feat. "It has one primary hand, and all the others are off hands." The Vestigial Arm doesn't allow for an extra off hand attack and therefor doesn't qualify as a 'normal' arm for the feat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hydromancer wrote:
The creature itself has NOT taken MWF

The creature in question is illegally built then, so it doesn't really set any precedent at all.

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

I've never encountered a GM who restricts bestiary feats, so that's highly anecdotal. The book itself doesn't restrict them in any way. Only PFS has bestiary feat rulings.


Hydromancer wrote:

The best we have is a precedent in The Divinity Drive (part 6 of the iron gods adventure path.)

RAW, the off-hand greatsword would receive full 1.5x str because the rules for 'half damage' are strictly tied to one-handed and light weapons.

Except the AP is not written this way.

If you're going to cite it as precedent, then use what was printed.

Spoiler:
Melee +1 shock chainsaw +16/+11/+6 (3d6+5/18–20 plus
1d6 electricity), +1 chainsaw +16/+11 (3d6+4/18–20)

The difference is exactly her Str mod(+1), so it's obvious it doesn't apply to the offhand


A further question, if it says 'replaces' does that not mean all instances of the phrase "two-weapon fighting" are replaced with "multi-weapon fighting" where it is mentioned?

Would this not replace the required feats for ITWF and GTWF to have MWF as a pre-req?

It would be a little crazy to say: You have four arms. Therefore you must take MWF rather than TWF. Here's your list of banned feats because MWF can't qualify you the same way TWF can.

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

Archaeik wrote:

Except the AP is not written this way.

If you're going to cite it as precedent, then use what was printed.

I hadn't looked at the damage, only the attack string.

Even without the npc from divinity drive, it's RAW to use 1.5x damage on the offhand greatsword. Two handed weapons do not care what kind of hands are wielding them. Only that there are two.

The only real question at this point I feel is the MWF=/=TWF issue and wether or not a DM would force you to take a bestiary feat and then ban the list of feats above from you.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Hydromancer wrote:
it's RAW to use 1.5x damage on the offhand greatsword. Two handed weapons do not care what kind of hands are wielding them. Only that there are two.

Those rules are in the context of only two hands, you can't say it is RAW how to handle it with more than 2 hands, because there are no rules for how to handle 2 two handed weapons.


Hydromancer wrote:

Even without the npc from divinity drive, it's RAW to use 1.5x damage on the offhand greatsword. Two handed weapons do not care what kind of hands are wielding them. Only that there are two.

This is disingenous. You can't use an example to prove your point and then decide to ignore it when it turns out to prove the opposite.


Blakmane wrote:
Hydromancer wrote:

Even without the npc from divinity drive, it's RAW to use 1.5x damage on the offhand greatsword. Two handed weapons do not care what kind of hands are wielding them. Only that there are two.

This is disingenous. You can't use an example to prove your point and then decide to ignore it when it turns out to prove the opposite.

Sorry, I thought I had typed that as an admission to your finding of the incorrect stat block.

My followup question after that was posed with the statblock being tossed as it was an illegal statblock per the rules.

It was my opinion at least that if one portion of the stat block is incorrect, then the whole thing probably can't be trusted as it would be a little screwy to say the statblock doesn't allow for TWF to be taken and then say the statblock proves something else.


Blakmane wrote:
Hydromancer wrote:
The creature itself has NOT taken MWF

The creature in question is illegally built then, so it doesn't really set any precedent at all.

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

I've never encountered a GM who restricts bestiary feats, so that's highly anecdotal. The book itself doesn't restrict them in any way. Only PFS has bestiary feat rulings.

I personally don't see much of an issue with them not upgrading TWF to MWF as the NPC was build to not use the extra off hand attack MWF would grant but instead works just fine with TWF only. As such, I find it a minor 'error' at best and wouldn't invalidate it in my eyes.


Archaeik wrote:
Hydromancer wrote:

The best we have is a precedent in The Divinity Drive (part 6 of the iron gods adventure path.)

RAW, the off-hand greatsword would receive full 1.5x str because the rules for 'half damage' are strictly tied to one-handed and light weapons.

Except the AP is not written this way.

If you're going to cite it as precedent, then use what was printed.

** spoiler omitted **

So the question that raises is did they calculate damage like this....

Main hand
3d6 + 1 magic + 3 weapon training + 1.5 two handed Str (rounded to 1)
Off hand
3d6 + 1 magic + 3 weapon training + .5 off hand Str (rounded to 0)

Or like this.....
Main hand
3d6 + 1 magic + 3 weapon training + 1 main hand Str
Off hand
3d6 + 1 magic + 3 weapon training + .5 off hand Str (rounded to 0)

Does the main hand get 1.5 Str for being two handed, or just Str for being the main hand per TWF


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
thaX wrote:
Hydromancer wrote:

I did some preliminary googling to find any kind of answer and so far I've only found threads pertaining to the Alch's vestigial arm discovery and it's prohibition on gaining extra attacks.

Can a Kasatha wield a pair of greatswords two handed; one in each pair of hands?

How would the strength bonuses work for that? 1.5, 0.75 (1.5 x 0.5)? Would double slice bring that back to 1.5, 1.5?

Or would it be 1.5, 0.5 with double slice bringing it to 1.5, 1.0? Kind of defeats the idea of wielding a pair of two handers though.

I know there are going to be massive attack penalties for using two non-light weapons with two-weapon fighting.

I also found the feat 'multi-weapon fighting.' Is this legal for players to take? Can I take Improved Two-Weapon fighting and Greater Two-Weapon fighting to gain a 2nd and 3rd iterative attack on the other greatsword if I take this in replacement of the original TWF?

-Hydro

The real question is what happens if you do wield these weapons in this manner?

Two Weapon Fighting specifies wielding One handed and Light weapons, but does not mention Two Handed weapons at all, for or against. You would also only get 1.0 and .5 str bonus for the weapons (Main and Off, in that order) no matter their size or how they are wielded. (again, TWF)

Even Mulit Weapon Fighting (Monster feat) uses only one handed (or less) weapons.

My stance? Nope, not going to happen without a feat/archtype.

And the bow thing? Yeah, look on the other thread. I don't think we need to say all that again.

actually TWFing only mentions light weapons or when they are not light weapons. it only says if your off hand weapon is light the penalties are reduced to -2/-2

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Have you seen the Bow Nomad Ranger archetype for the Kasatha?

It allows you to dual wield Longbows.

Note that it takes an archetype to do that, which tends to indicate that dual wielding greatswords are a no.


PRD wrote:

Light: A light weapon is used in one hand. It is easier to use in one's off hand than a one-handed weapon is, and can be used while grappling (see Combat). Add the wielder's Strength modifier to damage rolls for melee attacks with a light weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or half the wielder's Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand. Using two hands to wield a light weapon gives no advantage on damage; the Strength bonus applies as though the weapon were held in the wielder's primary hand only.

PRD wrote:
One-Handed: A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand. Add the wielder's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or 1/2 his Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand. If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat, add 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls.
PRD wrote:
Two-Handed: Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon.

Two-Handed weapons require a primary and an off-hand.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
PRD wrote:

Light: A light weapon is used in one hand. It is easier to use in one's off hand than a one-handed weapon is, and can be used while grappling (see Combat). Add the wielder's Strength modifier to damage rolls for melee attacks with a light weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or half the wielder's Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand. Using two hands to wield a light weapon gives no advantage on damage; the Strength bonus applies as though the weapon were held in the wielder's primary hand only.

PRD wrote:
One-Handed: A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand. Add the wielder's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or 1/2 his Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand. If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat, add 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls.
PRD wrote:
Two-Handed: Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon.
Two-Handed weapons require a primary and an off-hand.

That argument doesn't follow. Two handed doesn't mention primary and off hand and the one-handed and light text sets no precedent as they are written under the assumption you have two arms.


Hydromancer wrote:
Blakmane wrote:
Hydromancer wrote:

Even without the npc from divinity drive, it's RAW to use 1.5x damage on the offhand greatsword. Two handed weapons do not care what kind of hands are wielding them. Only that there are two.

This is disingenous. You can't use an example to prove your point and then decide to ignore it when it turns out to prove the opposite.

Sorry, I thought I had typed that as an admission to your finding of the incorrect stat block.

My followup question after that was posed with the statblock being tossed as it was an illegal statblock per the rules.

It was my opinion at least that if one portion of the stat block is incorrect, then the whole thing probably can't be trusted as it would be a little screwy to say the statblock doesn't allow for TWF to be taken and then say the statblock proves something else.

That's fair both ways, yeah. NPC stat blocks don't really prove anything in pathfinder most of the time (see vital strike debacles) other than 'even the designers don't get too hung up on the rules'.


Blakmane wrote:
Hydromancer wrote:
Blakmane wrote:
Hydromancer wrote:

Even without the npc from divinity drive, it's RAW to use 1.5x damage on the offhand greatsword. Two handed weapons do not care what kind of hands are wielding them. Only that there are two.

This is disingenous. You can't use an example to prove your point and then decide to ignore it when it turns out to prove the opposite.

Sorry, I thought I had typed that as an admission to your finding of the incorrect stat block.

My followup question after that was posed with the statblock being tossed as it was an illegal statblock per the rules.

It was my opinion at least that if one portion of the stat block is incorrect, then the whole thing probably can't be trusted as it would be a little screwy to say the statblock doesn't allow for TWF to be taken and then say the statblock proves something else.

That's fair both ways, yeah. NPC stat blocks don't really prove anything in pathfinder most of the time (see vital strike debacles) other than 'even the designers don't get too hung up on the rules'.

Yeah it seems they go with the rule of cool more often than most players would hahaha.

That said, I got DM clearance to do double greatswords at 1.5x each already.

I still really want a FAQ on this though.

@Durngrun Stonebreaker

Yeah it doesn't mention "main hand" or "off hand" just "two hands."

I can see how you'd infer that but it doesn't make any mention of it.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Hydromancer wrote:

Yeah it doesn't mention "main hand" or "off hand" just "two hands."

I can see how you'd infer that but it doesn't make any mention of it.

The entire rule system is written with a human in mind. So saying "two hands" is the same as "all hands".


James Risner wrote:
Hydromancer wrote:

Yeah it doesn't mention "main hand" or "off hand" just "two hands."

I can see how you'd infer that but it doesn't make any mention of it.

The entire rule system is written with a human in mind. So saying "two hands" is the same as "all hands".

If that were true any race with more than 2 hands would be forced to wield a 2 handed weapon with 'all hands'.

That isn't RAW nor is it RAI.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Hydromancer wrote:

If that were true ...

That isn't RAW nor is it RAI.

It is true, basically. The races with more than 2 hands break the rules. Just like Double Strike breaks the rule of 1.5 STR damage either in two hands or in two weapons.


Specific overriding general is not 'breaking the rules' that IS the rule.


James Risner wrote:
Kchaka wrote:
Also, I think it may be possible for a 4 armed creature to hold 3 2HWs and choose which one they'll use to make their attacks in the round by switching the 4th hand grip as a free action.
I don't. So until there is an FAQ, there will be disagreement on what the rules say.

James, why do you think a creature with 4 arms holding 3 2HW would not be able to switch grips with the 4th hand as a free action to change which weapon it's going to attack with?


Use the unchaind monk with two two-handed monk weapons. It looks and feels like twf but its even better. 1.5 STR bonus on all attacks, full bab, no attack penalities, no rule problems.


DEXRAY wrote:
Use the unchaind monk with two two-handed monk weapons. It looks and feels like twf but its even better. 1.5 STR bonus on all attacks, full bab, no attack penalities, no rule problems.

That's..... actually pretty genius.

Wow.

Thanks man!

I'm still exploring the concept for my character. I know I'm playing a kasatha but I'm undecided on what build to go.

We're starting at lvl 6, and so far I've built a Brawler and a two weapon warrior fighter.

I'll try statting out the monk and see how I like it, but it'll be a big tossup losing the martial flexibility feature.

Basically I want a shock-trooper. He charges in before the rest of the party and attempts to murder the healer or fight the leader of the group.

The setting is a steam-punk post war nation, with border skirmishes popping up. When the war was still active he would charge enemy defensive lines and disrupt them.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Kchaka wrote:
James, why do you think a creature with 4 arms holding 3 2HW would not be able to switch grips with the 4th hand as a free action to change which weapon it's going to attack with?

Kchaka, why do you think a creature with 2 arms holding 1 2HW would not be able to switch grips with the 2nd hand as a free action to attack with armor spikes?


They can using iterative attacks.

Liberty's Edge

Having actually run the numbers for a similar discussion, a Kasatha using two greatswords is inferior to one using one longsword and three shortswords, and no one bats an eye at the thought of the second configuration. Greatsword away. The best combination would be to use four sawtooth sabres.

EDIT: Link to my post.

I guess I ran 2 greatswords vs 1 greatsword/2 shortswords. Regardless, the point still stands that running 2 greatswords is inferior.


James Risner wrote:
Kchaka wrote:
James, why do you think a creature with 4 arms holding 3 2HW would not be able to switch grips with the 4th hand as a free action to change which weapon it's going to attack with?
Kchaka, why do you think a creature with 2 arms holding 1 2HW would not be able to switch grips with the 2nd hand as a free action to attack with armor spikes?

There is no such thing as 3 handed and 4 handed weapons as your line of reasoning seems to suggest.

A creature with more than two hands may in fact use a two handed weapon with two hands. There is zero support anywhere for having use 3 or 4 hands for a two hander.


Hydromancer wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Kchaka wrote:
James, why do you think a creature with 4 arms holding 3 2HW would not be able to switch grips with the 4th hand as a free action to change which weapon it's going to attack with?
Kchaka, why do you think a creature with 2 arms holding 1 2HW would not be able to switch grips with the 2nd hand as a free action to attack with armor spikes?

There is no such thing as 3 handed and 4 handed weapons as your line of reasoning seems to suggest.

A creature with more than two hands may in fact use a two handed weapon with two hands. There is zero support anywhere for having use 3 or 4 hands for a two hander.

I wasn't suggesting holding a 2HW with 3 or for hands, I suggested holding #3 Two-Handed Weapons, one on each hand, and having a 4th hand free to grip the one you want to attack with, but you still would have to abide by some other rules that would limit your attack choice options.

D&D 3.5 Savage Species gives the rules for holding a weapon with 3+ hands. Each hand adds STR x0.5 bonus to damage, so 4 hands would do STR x2.5 . Unfortuanlly, they didn't say anything about a medium creature wielding a Large 2HW with 4 hands.


Kchaka wrote:
Hydromancer wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Kchaka wrote:
James, why do you think a creature with 4 arms holding 3 2HW would not be able to switch grips with the 4th hand as a free action to change which weapon it's going to attack with?
Kchaka, why do you think a creature with 2 arms holding 1 2HW would not be able to switch grips with the 2nd hand as a free action to attack with armor spikes?

There is no such thing as 3 handed and 4 handed weapons as your line of reasoning seems to suggest.

A creature with more than two hands may in fact use a two handed weapon with two hands. There is zero support anywhere for having use 3 or 4 hands for a two hander.

I wasn't suggesting holding a 2HW with 3 or for hands, I suggested holding #3 Two-Handed Weapons, one on each hand, and having a 4th hand free to grip the one you want to attack with, but you still would have to abide by some other rules that would limit your attack choice options.

D&D 3.5 Savage Species gives the rules for holding a weapon with 3+ hands. Each hand adds STR x0.5 bonus to damage, so 4 hands would do STR x2.5 . Unfortuanlly, they didn't say anything about a medium creature wielding a Large 2HW with 4 hands.

Oh that's not in reply to you, I hit the wrong reply button heh.

I meant to reply to Mr. Risner.

The large 2HW is interesting. The rules on handedness would actually leave a ground work for this (2 medium hands equals 1 large hand essentially) but this is definitely not written and is unofficially capped off at 2 hands being used at a time.

Grand Lodge

I would stick something that will give you, and your DM, the least amount of a rules headache.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Kchaka wrote:
I wasn't suggesting holding a 2HW with 3 or for hands,

Neither was I. I was pointing out that the base rules of the game assumes one weapon is wielded with 2 hands at most. In a typical human, if you wield your two hand weapon you have no more offhands to wield weapons. You can find rules to two hand a THW and with a 3+ arm race you have additional offhands to wield light or one handed weapons.


James Risner wrote:
Kchaka wrote:
James, why do you think a creature with 4 arms holding 3 2HW would not be able to switch grips with the 4th hand as a free action to change which weapon it's going to attack with?
Kchaka, why do you think a creature with 2 arms holding 1 2HW would not be able to switch grips with the 2nd hand as a free action to attack with armor spikes?

I think a Human (2 arms) should be able to attack with a 2HW and then switch grips with the 2nd hand as a free action to attack with armor spikes (don't know why he would need a hand for that) or draw and attack with a Dagger, with Quick Draw, as long as these are interactive attacks, not off-hand attacks.

A creature with 4 arms can do things a Human can't, and I think it should be able to switch grips with several 2HWs just like a Human can switch grips or draw several 1HWs.

I'm not saying this would allow the 4 armed creature to attack with any 2HW it's holding while "TWFing".

Basically, a creature with 4 arms holding 3 2HWs would be a way for it to have 3 choices of weapon to make it's interactive attacks, without having to "buy" Quick Draw. The drawback of this is it would only be doing STRx 1.5 with each attack, instead of STRx 2.5 if it were making all it's interactive attacks wit the same weapon wielded with 4 hands (btw, Power Attack with 4 hands should be, like, x5)

Also, I think one of the reasons you have to designate a MH and a OH weapon while TWFing is to force the alteratio of the attacks and prevent someone with a +10 Sword and a +0 Club from TWFing with just to make more attacks with the Sword.

The same concept can be applied to 4 arms, either with 4 1HW or 3 2HW, but with a adapted understanding. At the time of the attack, you can choose any weapon you are holding to make your MH or OH attacks, but if you decide to MFW and choose a certain weapon for the MH attack, that weapon can no longer be used for an OH attack for the rest of that set of attacks. Likewise, once you chose a 2nd weapon to make the 1st OH attack, neither the 1st or the 2nd weapons chosen can be used to make the rest of the OH attacks for that set of attacks.

Before someone says "This is not the rules", I'll remind you that I know that and I'm just saying how I think they should be, before an offical FAQ is made.

James, I still would like to know why do you think holding 3 2HW and switching grips should not be possible.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

I don't like races with more than 2 arms because the game REALLY has no rules to cover exactly what happens in these kind of situations. Two-hand weapons by the rules require "both" hands, this doesn't mean just two hands, this is an assumption that you only have 2. this means these rules simply do not apply to races with more than 2 arms.

the problem of course for 4 armed races is they're paying way more for their weapons, and it's never really explained if they can get more than 2 unarmed strikes or not, which really doesn't make sense since monks don't require hands to make unarmed strikes.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Kchaka wrote:

I think a Human (2 arms) should be able to attack with a 2HW and then switch grips with the 2nd hand as a free action to attack with armor spikes

James, I still would like to know why do you think holding 3 2HW and switching grips should not be possible.

Well I don't. I never did. But it doesn't matter what you think the rules say, the rules don't allow you use a Greatsword and use an offhand Armor Spikes. You may rule 0 it.

As for your question, here is the answer that has been said multiple times.

Quote:
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.

One hand is primary, the others are off hands.

Can you wield a Greatsword in two off hands? Is there a rule for that? No.

There is a rule that Light and One Handed weapons in the primary hand (which you only have one) can gain the 1.5x STR. The Two Handed weapon rules take "both" hands. Both hands on a human means 1 primary and 1 off hand. It does not mean two off hands.


James Risner wrote:

Can you wield a Greatsword in two off hands? Is there a rule for that? No.

There is a rule that Light and One Handed weapons in the primary hand (which you only have one) can gain the 1.5x STR. The Two Handed weapon rules take "both" hands. Both hands on a human means 1 primary and 1 off hand. It does not mean two off hands.

I think the rules are pretty unclear, and don't really support side because of that.

But I think you are stretching here.

The rules for Two Handed weapons just say,

Two Handed Weapons wrote:
Two-Handed: Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon (see FAQ at right for more information.

Note: "Two," not "both." Not "Primary and off," just "two."

Yes, the rules normally assume a two armed biped, but that doesn't change that it only requires "two," nothing further. Any thing additional is being added by you.

So Yes, there are rules allow a greatsword in two off hands, but it only requires two hands.

Beyond that....much more murky.


Samasboy1 wrote:
James Risner wrote:

Can you wield a Greatsword in two off hands? Is there a rule for that? No.

There is a rule that Light and One Handed weapons in the primary hand (which you only have one) can gain the 1.5x STR. The Two Handed weapon rules take "both" hands. Both hands on a human means 1 primary and 1 off hand. It does not mean two off hands.

I think the rules are pretty unclear, and don't really support side because of that.

But I think you are stretching here.

The rules for Two Handed weapons just say,

Two Handed Weapons wrote:
Two-Handed: Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon (see FAQ at right for more information.

Note: "Two," not "both." Not "Primary and off," just "two."

Yes, the rules normally assume a two armed biped, but that doesn't change that it only requires "two," nothing further. Any thing additional is being added by you.

So Yes, there are rules allow a greatsword in two off hands, but it only requires two hands.

Beyond that....much more murky.

It requires reading in context.

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
PRD wrote:

Light: A light weapon is used in one hand. It is easier to use in one's off hand than a one-handed weapon is, and can be used while grappling (see Combat). Add the wielder's Strength modifier to damage rolls for melee attacks with a light weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or half the wielder's Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand. Using two hands to wield a light weapon gives no advantage on damage; the Strength bonus applies as though the weapon were held in the wielder's primary hand only.

PRD wrote:
One-Handed: A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand. Add the wielder's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or 1/2 his Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand. If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat, add 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls.
PRD wrote:
Two-Handed: Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon.
Two-Handed weapons require a primary and an off-hand.

Note that this isn't pulled from all over the rule book. This is all from the same page, all under one heading. You don't have to like it, you don't have to use it, but it seems silly to deny its existence.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Samasboy1 wrote:
Yes, the rules normally assume a two armed biped, but that doesn't change that it only requires "two," nothing further. Any thing additional is being added by you.

In the context of the rules written for a two armed biped, that "two" means "your primary and your offhand". If you reject this, then you are intentionally interpreting the rules in a manner to suit your view. You are applying an interpretation that is the expected interpretation.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

It requires reading in context.

Note that this isn't pulled from all over the rule book. This is all from the same page, all under one heading. You don't have to like it, you don't have to use it, but it seems silly to deny its existence.

It isn't about not liking it, it is about it literally not saying what you say it does.

There have been multi-armed creatures since the very beginning, its just Kasatha are the first that seem intended for PC use. These monsters have to use the same rules (for the most part) as PCs.

So, saying "two" means "two" and not "all" or "both" or "primary and off hand" isn't about ignoring context or not liking whats written. Its saying the rules say "two."

James Risner wrote:
In the context of the rules written for a two armed biped, that "two" means "your primary and your offhand". If you reject this, then you are intentionally interpreting the rules in a manner to suit your view. You are applying an interpretation that is the expected interpretation.

First, no, rejecting this means I am reading what is actually written in the rules. And further, I am interpreting the rules in a manner that is applicable to all multi-armed races, which existed since PF started, and not just worried about one recently introduced PC race.

If anything, I would accuse you of intentionally misinterpreting the rules because you dislike the possibility of the result.

The rule has existed since PF started, multiarmed creatures have existed since PF started, the word in the rule is "two" and not something else.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Samasboy1 wrote:

It isn't about not liking it, it is about it literally not saying what you say it does.

The rule has existed since PF started, multiarmed creatures have existed since PF started, the word in the rule is "two" and not something else.

Well we are at an impass. You think your interpretation is RAW. I think you are intentionally interpreting it incorrectly to match your desired outcome. You think I'm doing the same. We can never agree. Plus several times developers have agreed with my interpretation as being RAW.


If you have any evidence to support your assertion that the Devs say "two" means "main hand and off hand" I don't see that you presented it anywhere.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Samasboy1 wrote:
If you have any evidence to support your assertion that the Devs say "two" means "main hand and off hand" I don't see that you presented it anywhere.

Then you didn't read my posts here or you choose to interpret it outside the scope of the rules.

The rules are written with human in mind (if you need a quote from a dev I can google that for you.)

The rules in the CRB on the page going over how you use weapons details that one handed and light weapons can use your primary or offhand. On the same page when talking about two handed weapons, it says "two". On the same page it said you have only one primary and one offhand. Since you only have two hands, that means "one primary and one offhand".

There are no rules for using a two handed weapon in two offhands. People with more than 2 arms have one primary and 2 or more offhands.

----

Really it comes down to these two interpretations:
1) Yours: "two" means a primary and offhand, two primary, or two offhand.
2) Mine: "two" means a primary and offhand.


Look, it's not rocket science.

"How many hands you need to use a longsword? One."

"How many hands do you need to use a Greatsword? Two. Why? Because it's too heavy for one hand (for most people)."

"How many hands do you need to use a Scythe? Two. Because it's too heavy? No, because it was designed to be used effectivelly with two hands."

Let's not make a deal out of something there aren't even official rules for. Keep it simple, just use any two hands to usea two handed weapon. Yes, ou can do that, you have 4 arms and that makes you "special". The important thing is that, whatever rules you use apply to everybody, including the enemy.

And if people can't do reverse engineering to understand how to rules work, they need to learn how to think instead of simply repeating what's written when they know it was written for a different context, like a corrupt lawyer using the law's loopholes to defend a criminal.


James Risner wrote:

Then you didn't read my posts here or you choose to interpret it outside the scope of the rules.

The rules are written with human in mind (if you need a quote from a dev I can google that for you.)

I have read you posts. No where have you provided any quote, link, reference or other evidence of Dev support that "two" means "primary and off hand," only your own assertions that it is true.

A statement that you have one primary and one off hand is demonstrably false for Kasatha, so it doesn't apply.

And since multiarmed monsters have existed since (and before) the Bestiary 1, I still don't see any evidence "two" means anything other than "two."

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Samasboy1 wrote:
A statement that you have one primary and one off hand is demonstrably false for Kasatha, so it doesn't apply.

So confused because this statement is absolutely positively inexplicably totally 100% false.

All races have one primary hand and some number of off hands.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

the rules explicitly do not cover any case where you try to hold a two-handed weapon on a race with more than 2 hands.

if you're interpretation is correct samas, it would allow alchemists to dual wield greatswords because they do not need hands of effort and only 2, and since they don't give them more attacks than are normal, you could dual wield greatswords as an alchemist.


James Risner wrote:

So confused because this statement is absolutely positively inexplicably totally 100% false.

All races have one primary hand and some number of off hands.

You didn't say "some number", you said, "On the same page it said you only have one primary and one off hand."

This is false for Kasatha, who have one Primary and THREE off hands.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Samasboy1 wrote:
This is false for Kasatha, who have one Primary and THREE off hands.

Specific vs general. There are no rules saying you can use a Greatsword in two off hands, only "two hands" in the context of a rulebook without any other 3 or more handed creatures. In the context of the CRB two hands is "one primary" and "one offhand".

You know the CRB is in this context but you choose to be pedantic about the meaning of "two hands" by ignoring context.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

We are going over the "Unwritten rules" area here.

Any one creature, be they humaniod or monster, always ever only have one (1) Main hand. All the other(s) are off hands.

By rules...

  • One can only wield one Two Handed weapon sized for the wielder.
  • One would only get .5 str mod damage for any offhand weapon
  • One would not be able to wield oversized Two Handed weapons

Now, there are Archtypes (of which I assume the chainsaw wielding Kasatha is) and class abilities that trump the normal rules.

I know of a Kasatha archtype that can double wield bows, and a fighter archtype that can wield oversized Two Handed Weapons.

If you don't have those abilities, however, you can't double wield Two Handed Weapons.

If you do, by the grace of a kind GM, the second "offhand" weapon would still be .5 str mod damage.


thaX wrote:

We are going over the "Unwritten rules" area here.

Any one creature, be they humaniod or monster, always ever only have one (1) Main hand. All the other(s) are off hands.

By rules...

  • One can only wield one Two Handed weapon sized for the wielder.
  • One would only get .5 str mod damage for any offhand weapon
  • One would not be able to wield oversized Two Handed weapons

Now, there are Archtypes (of which I assume the chainsaw wielding Kasatha is) and class abilities that trump the normal rules.

I know of a Kasatha archtype that can double wield bows, and a fighter archtype that can wield oversized Two Handed Weapons.

If you don't have those abilities, however, you can't double wield Two Handed Weapons.

If you do, by the grace of a kind GM, the second "offhand" weapon would still be .5 str mod damage.

There is no rule that says you can only wield one two handed weapon. That is the point of the thread.

The rules only say you get .5 Str on a light or one handed weapon wielded in the off hand. This is actually part of the definition of light and one handed weapons, not off hand attacks. It is not part of the rule for two handed weapons.

Yes, an oversized two handed weapon cannot normally be wielded.

I wouldn't assume the dual-chainsaw wielding kasatha has any particular archetype, because assumptions are usually wrong.

There is no need for an archetype to dual wield two handed weapons if you have four hands. Each weapon requires two hands, and you have four.

The Str mod for one handed and light weapons wielded in the off hand is .5. This information is found in the definition of light and one handed weapons. There is no such rule under two handed weapons.

Dark Archive

Samasboy1 wrote:


So the question that raises is did they calculate damage like this....

Main hand
3d6 + 1 magic + 3 weapon training + 1.5 two handed Str (rounded to 1)
Off hand
3d6 + 1 magic + 3 weapon training + .5 off hand Str (rounded to 0)

Or like this.....
Main hand
3d6 + 1 magic + 3 weapon training + 1 main hand Str
Off hand
3d6 + 1 magic + 3 weapon training + .5 off hand Str (rounded to 0)

Does the main hand get 1.5 Str for being two handed, or just Str for being the main hand per TWF

Its far worse than that the NPC in question has Weapon Specialization and is doing too little damage no matter how you calculate it.

Bits of relevant stat block follow

Spoiler:

Strength 12 BAB +15

Melee: +1 shock chainsaw +16/+11/+6 (3d6+5/18–20 plus 1d6 electricity), +1 chainsaw +16/+11 (3d6+4/18–20)

Special Attacks: Weapon Training (heavy blades +3)

Feats: Greater Weapon Focus (chainsaw), Improved Two-Weapon Fighting,
Two-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus (chainsaw), Weapon Specialization (chainsaw)

Which the attack bonus calculates out correctly with penalties at -4/-4 but also seems to have lost 2 damage for MH and OH weapons.

As the GM I would rule that RAI is 1.5x Str per iterative (so 1.5 when two handing or 1 mainhand and .5 offhand) boosted to 2x Str with Double Slice and some archetypes. I know this isn't what the OP wants and with the -4 penalties is strictly inferior but some options are strictly inferior.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Samasboy1 wrote:
There is no need for an archetype to dual wield two handed weapons if you have four hands. Each weapon requires two hands, and you have four.

You can say it as often as you like but either you can expect table variance on the RAW or you can expect to be told you are wrong.

51 to 100 of 105 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Kasatha, TWF, and 2 handers All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.