The Guy With A Face |
I need help confirming I have the rules for Multiweapon Fighting correct. If I have a four-armed eidolon, the feat would allow it to take an attack with a weapon in each hand, correct?
If so, let's say my eidolon has:
BAB: +6,+1
Dex: 18(+4) with Weapon Finesse (using 4 shortswords +1)
Including the penalty for multiweapon fighting, would its attack bonuses for a full attack be:
Primary Attack I: +9
Primary Attack II: +4
Off-hand 1-3: +9
Is that correct?
Dr Styx |
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.)
So..
Primary Attack : +9
All Other Attacks : +6
You only get ONE Primary Attack.
Skylancer4 |
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.)
So..
Primary Attack : +9
All Other Attacks : +6You only get ONE Primary Attack.
Um.. They get two primary attacks, they have the BAB to make two.
Unless you are playing that when creatures use TWF/ITWF/GTWF they only get one main hand attack during a full attack action. In which case that is a heck of a (horrible) house rule to be playing with.
Dr Styx |
Eidolons don't get a BAB of +6/+1
All of there attacks are at full BAB... Witch would be +6
There max attacks/ round at BAB of +6 is 5 natural attacks
But here he is using Weapons with the Multiwepon Feat
So with 4 arms, he would only get 4 attacks
My mistake is saying "Primary" instead of Main Hand and Off Hands
Main Hand +9
Off Hands +6
Skylancer4 |
Eidolons don't get a BAB of +6/+1
All of there attacks are at full BAB... Witch would be +6
There max attacks/ round at BAB of +6 is 5 natural attacks
But here he is using Weapons with the Multiwepon Feat
So with 4 arms, he would only get 4 attacks
My mistake is saying "Primary" instead of Main Hand and Off HandsMain Hand +9
Off Hands +6
Any creature using natural attacks wouldn't get additional attacks from BAB. Eidolon have limitations on natural attacks, they however do not have a limitation per level on attacks with weapons.
The eidolon is using weapons and using multi weapon fighting. They get the additional attacks from BAB.
You probably need to go read the combat section of the book to brush up on your rules. You are just flat out incorrect with your post.
Dr Styx |
Any creature using natural attacks wouldn't get additional attacks from BAB. Eidolon have limitations on natural attacks, they however do not have a limitation per level on attacks with weapons.
The eidolon is using weapons and using multi weapon fighting. They get the additional attacks from BAB.
You probably need to go read the combat section of the book to brush up on your rules. You are just flat out incorrect with your post.
Thank you for your advice, could you please point out to me what the correct rules are. And where I can find them.
Also, other than letting me know I'm incorrect, you have not answered the question of this post. What would your answer be?
:-)
Dr Styx |
Benefit: Penalties for fighting with multiple weapons are reduced by –2 with the main hand and by –6 with off hands.
ATTACK 1
BAB +6(primary attack), Dex +4, +1 Sword, Main Hand -2= +9
ATTACKS 2, 3, and 4
BAB +6(primary attack), Dex +4, +1 Sword, Off Hand -6= +5
(Sorry was off on this in earlier posts)
Attacks made with natural weapons, such as claws and bites, are melee attacks that can be made against any creature within your reach (usually 5 feet). These attacks are made using your full attack bonus and deal an amount of damage that depends on their type (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). You do not receive additional natural attacks for a high base attack bonus. Instead, you receive additional attack rolls for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack (as noted by the race or ability that grants the attacks). If you possess only one natural attack (such as a bite—two claw attacks do not qualify), you add 1–1/2 times your Strength bonus on damage rolls made with that attack.
You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack. For example, you cannot make a claw attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a longsword. When you make additional attacks in this way, all of your natural attacks are treated as secondary natural attacks, using your base attack bonus minus 5 and adding only 1/2 of your Strength modifier on damage rolls. Feats such as Two-Weapon Fighting and Multiattack can reduce these penalties.
No other type off attack was given in this Question, but it gets a maximum of 5,so let's give it a Bite attack.
ATTACK 5
BAB +6, Secondary Attack(Multuattack) -2, Str(19)+4= +8
Please let me know if I missed something...
Pavsdotexe |
Hello Dr Styx,
I would first like to point out that the Natural Attacks section is not applicable to this situation, because the creature in question will not be making any natural attacks. Since a short sword is a manufactured weapon, it will be granted an additional attack from high BAB as usual.
Here's the relevant text in the PRD:
Base Attack Bonus (BAB): Each creature has a base attack bonus and it represents its skill in combat. As a character gains levels or Hit Dice, his base attack bonus improves. When a creature's base attack bonus reaches +6, +11, or +16, he receives an additional attack in combat when he takes a full-attack action (which is one type of full-round action—see Combat).
To reiterate: the natural weapon rules are an exception to this rule, and will only apply in situations where a natural weapon is being used.
Secondly, I don't believe your math is correct: Multiweapon Fighting states that a creature normally takes a -6 penalty on main hand attacks, and a -10 penalty on off hand attacks. What the feat does is reduce these penalties by -2 for main hand attacks and -6 for off hand attacks. This results in -4 penalty on both main and off hand attacks.
What this looks like is then:
Main hand I: 6+4+1-4 = +7 to hit
Main hand II: 1+4+1-4 = +2 to hit
Off hand A: 6+4+1-4 = +7 to hit
Off hand B: 6+4+1-4 = +7 to hit
Off hand C: 6+4+1-4 = +7 to hit
This is using the reading that the reducing the penalty by an additional 2 for having an offhand light weapon doesn't apply for Multi Weapon Fighting, since it isn't explicitly mentioned in the feat. I am against that reading, as the Multiweapon Fighting feat never granted the attack (it only reduced the penalty). Additionally, it tells the reader to look at Two-Weapon Fighting in the CRB, which says to reduce by 2 if the offhand weapon is light. So I read there's only a -2 penalty on both main and off hand attacks.
What I would conclude is:
Main hand I: 6+4+1-2 = +9 to hit
Main hand II: 1+4+1-2 = +4 to hit
Off hand A: 6+4+1-2 = +9 to hit
Off hand B: 6+4+1-2 = +9 to hit
Off hand C: 6+4+1-2 = +9 to hit
Dragonchess Player |
What this looks like is then:
Main hand I: 6+4+1-4 = +7 to hit
Main hand II: 1+4+1-4 = +2 to hit
Off hand A: 6+4+1-4 = +7 to hit
Off hand B: 6+4+1-4 = +7 to hit
Off hand C: 6+4+1-4 = +7 to hitThis is using the reading that the reducing the penalty by an additional 2 for having an offhand light weapon doesn't apply for Multi Weapon Fighting, since it isn't explicitly mentioned in the feat. I am against that reading
You may be against it, but it is followed in every official stat-block using Multi-Weapon Fighting with light weapons. As this is a rules forum, the RAW is that Multi-Weapon fighting does not gain that additional reduction to the penalty.
From a balance perspective, consider it against using Rapid Shot, Quick Draw, and Two-Weapon Fighting to throw multiple light weapons. Also, unlike Improved and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, the additional attacks from Multi-Weapon Fighting are not limited to certain BAB and Dex values, nor are they reduced as if they were iteratives.
Pavsdotexe |
Pavsdotexe wrote:You may be against it, but it is followed in every official stat-block using Multi-Weapon Fighting with light weapons. As this is a rules forum, the RAW is that Multi-Weapon fighting does not gain that additional reduction to the penalty.What this looks like is then:
Main hand I: 6+4+1-4 = +7 to hit
Main hand II: 1+4+1-4 = +2 to hit
Off hand A: 6+4+1-4 = +7 to hit
Off hand B: 6+4+1-4 = +7 to hit
Off hand C: 6+4+1-4 = +7 to hitThis is using the reading that the reducing the penalty by an additional 2 for having an offhand light weapon doesn't apply for Multi Weapon Fighting, since it isn't explicitly mentioned in the feat. I am against that reading
Thanks for the reply. I wasn't sure myself, so perhaps you can tell me: where in the rules does it say one gets extra attacks for fighting with multiple weapons? I was gonna try and base my decision off that, but the only clue I had was the MWF feat which only affects the penalties, and tells the reader to check out Two-Weapon Fighting (which I assume to mean the section in Chapter 8: Combat).
Calth |
Standard Multiweapon Fighting response: There is zero rules correlation between number of arms and number of available attacks. The TWF rule in the combat section grants a single attack with a second weapon, and the TWF feat line grants additional attacks. This is independent of the number of limbs a PC has. A PC with zero arms makes the same number of attacks as a PC with 20 arms by the rules of the game. Pathfinder was designed around the assumption of humanoid PCs, and if you vary from this things get weird. So talk to your GM about how they want to run it.
Dr Styx |
What this looks like is then:
Main hand I: 6+4+1-4 = +7 to hit
Main hand II: 1+4+1-4 = +2 to hit
Off hand A: 6+4+1-4 = +7 to hit
Off hand B: 6+4+1-4 = +7 to hit
Off hand C: 6+4+1-4 = +7 to hit
Thank you Pavsdotexe the BAB rule in getting started is the one I was unaware of. The BAB on the Eidolon table only gave one number. I will throw in with this answer of yours.
Pavsdotexe |
Standard Multiweapon Fighting response: There is zero rules correlation between number of arms and number of available attacks. The TWF rule in the combat section grants a single attack with a second weapon, and the TWF feat line grants additional attacks. This is independent of the number of limbs a PC has. A PC with zero arms makes the same number of attacks as a PC with 20 arms by the rules of the game. Pathfinder was designed around the assumption of humanoid PCs, and if you vary from this things get weird. So talk to your GM about how they want to run it.
I'd like to mention that I don't consider the Pathfinder rule set "complete" in the sense that you have to utilize nuances of the English language to follow the rules, even RAW. Per your example, if you are missing an arm, you would not be wielding a weapon in that hand. I was requesting a specific section because Dragonchess Player said that MWF doesn't work a certain way RAW, and I wanted to know what section that meant we were reading.
From a balance perspective, consider it against using Rapid Shot, Quick Draw, and Two-Weapon Fighting to throw multiple light weapons. Also, unlike Improved and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, the additional attacks from Multi-Weapon Fighting are not limited to certain BAB and Dex values, nor are they reduced as if they were iteratives.
To address your edit, I have never considered having extra arms in the same league as taking a feat. Extra arms are significantly superior to those you mentioned, with a change of 2 in the attack rolls not impacting that outcome. If there's no -2 in MWF, That Guy With A Face could still easily give his eidolon 4 Falcatas at -4 penalty, or do two weapon fighting with a -2 penalty Greatsword in the main hand and one offhand, a -2 penalty shortsword in the second offhand, and a shield in the last offhand. All while only requiring 13 Dex, instead of the usual 15 for TWF. I think balance was left at the door, this is a largely unintuitive ruling that favors cheese over flavor.
Avoron |
Standard Multiweapon Fighting response: There is zero rules correlation between number of arms and number of available attacks. The TWF rule in the combat section grants a single attack with a second weapon, and the TWF feat line grants additional attacks. This is independent of the number of limbs a PC has. A PC with zero arms makes the same number of attacks as a PC with 20 arms by the rules of the game. Pathfinder was designed around the assumption of humanoid PCs, and if you vary from this things get weird. So talk to your GM about how they want to run it.
2. Under your understanding, Multiweapon Fighting would do absolutely nothing different than Two-Weapon Fighting. More importantly, no creature would ever be able to make those extra off-hand attacks. And creatures do.
Look at mariliths, vrolikais, lhaksharuts, upasundas, sahuagin champions, high girallons, umasis, and four-armed mudra skeletons. They all have more than one off-hand attack with no special abilities granting them, simply by virtue of having more than two arms. This is because of the rule that states that all hands beside one are off hands. There's no reason this would work any differently for any other characters with more than two arms.
Calth |
The feat says nothing about gaining attacks. Off-hand =/= attack. A human can wield something like 5 off-hand weapons simultaneously, doesn't mean they get 5 attacks. The feat does function exactly like the TWF feat, it reduces attack penalties. As for the creatures, that's not an argument, as, per the design team, non-PCs "are allowed to break the rules in interesting ways." There is no rule that allows attacks with more than TWFing for PCs.
Entryhazard |
Standard Multiweapon Fighting response: There is zero rules correlation between number of arms and number of available attacks. The TWF rule in the combat section grants a single attack with a second weapon, and the TWF feat line grants additional attacks. This is independent of the number of limbs a PC has. A PC with zero arms makes the same number of attacks as a PC with 20 arms by the rules of the game. Pathfinder was designed around the assumption of humanoid PCs, and if you vary from this things get weird. So talk to your GM about how they want to run it.
Actually you get an attack for every arm, one primary that iterates through BAB and all the others are off-hand, features that grant extra limbs must specify that that limb doesn't provide an extra attack (see Vestigial Limb)
Calth |
Calth wrote:Standard Multiweapon Fighting response: There is zero rules correlation between number of arms and number of available attacks. The TWF rule in the combat section grants a single attack with a second weapon, and the TWF feat line grants additional attacks. This is independent of the number of limbs a PC has. A PC with zero arms makes the same number of attacks as a PC with 20 arms by the rules of the game. Pathfinder was designed around the assumption of humanoid PCs, and if you vary from this things get weird. So talk to your GM about how they want to run it.Actually you get an attack for every arm, one primary that iterates through BAB and all the others are off-hand, features that grant extra limbs must specify that that limb doesn't provide an extra attack (see Vestigial Limb)
Incorrect. There is no rule granting an attack for having an arm.
Dragonchess Player |
Extra limbs = more attacks only when using associated natural attacks; a feat is needed to actually use those extra limbs to make attacks with weapons (or unarmed strikes). Just having more limbs does nothing to increase the number of attacks possible (see also the FAQ regarding "off-hand" attacks with armor spikes when using a two-handed weapon*).
*- Personally, I would allow TWF with a two-handed weapon and armor spikes... but the two-handed weapon is treated as a one-handed weapon for applying Str bonus (and Power Attack) to damage.
Pavsdotexe |
Extra limbs = more attacks only when using associated natural attacks; a feat is needed to actually use those extra limbs to make attacks with weapons (or unarmed strikes). Just having more limbs does nothing to increase the number of attacks possible (see also the FAQ regarding "off-hand" attacks with armor spikes when using a two-handed weapon*).
*- Personally, I would allow TWF with a two-handed weapon and armor spikes... but the two-handed weapon is treated as a one-handed weapon for applying Str bonus (and Power Attack) to damage.
Source? I see the FAQ on armor spikes, but I want to confirm the rest of your post.
Dragonchess Player |
I probably should have included the word "effectively."
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.)
Taking a -6 penalty on the primary hand and -10 on each of the off-hands is as bad as having no extra attacks at all; mechanically, the extra attacks are worse (other than some very specific corner cases, such as a gunslinger with several pistols targeting touch AC) than just attacking with a single weapon.
Dr Styx |
Standard Multiweapon Fighting response: There is zero rules correlation between number of arms and number of available attacks. The TWF rule in the combat section grants a single attack with a second weapon, and the TWF feat line grants additional attacks. This is independent of the number of limbs a PC has. A PC with zero arms makes the same number of attacks as a PC with 20 arms by the rules of the game. Pathfinder was designed around the assumption of humanoid PCs, and if you vary from this things get weird. So talk to your GM about how they want to run it.
Two-Weapon Fighting (Combat)
You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the secondary weapon.Prerequisite: Dex 15.
Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. See Two-Weapon Fighting in Combat.
Normal: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way you suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand. If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light.
To me this reads that a level 1 PC, with no combat Feats can get extra attacks if the PC has weapons to do so. Most don't because of the large penalty to all of the PC's attack rolls.
Skylancer4 |
I believe the point they were making was, if a race doesn't state it gets access to the use of the extra limbs, the number of limbs is irrelevant.
Things like the Marilith or Kasatha have specific abilities that grant extra usage of the limbs. If you were to take their shape, and not get access to those abilities or have a way to take advantage of them, they mean nothing.
Two weapon fighting is a standard option for combat, but there is nothing in the combat section allowing you to make more than the single extra attack regardless of additional limbs. That extra bit tends to come from the race or creature write up. It isn't an option until something above and beyond, makes it an option.
Entryhazard |
Things like the Marilith or Kasatha have specific abilities that grant extra usage of the limbs.
Actually the Marilith ability says they don't get the penalty from using multiple weapons, that implies that they can use the weapons even without the ability, that just alters the attack roll bonus.
On the other hand abilities like the Vestigial Limb discovery or the Trox's Grabbing Appendages explicitly disallow using those extra arms for gaining attacks.
Skylancer4 |
Skylancer4 wrote:Things like the Marilith or Kasatha have specific abilities that grant extra usage of the limbs.Actually the Marilith ability says they don't get the penalty from using multiple weapons, that implies that they can use the weapons even without the ability, that just alters the attack roll bonus.
On the other hand abilities like the Vestigial Limb discovery or the Trox's Grabbing Appendages explicitly disallow using those extra arms for gaining attacks.
Again, the point was there are explicit rules when it is an option. If you change form into one of those creatures you don't get that "racial" ability. So you are unable to gain the advantage of the multiple limbs beyond 2, despite having the limbs. Without that extra little rule, you are completely unable to do more than Two weapon fighting.
Pavsdotexe |
Again, the point was there are explicit rules when it is an option.
I don't think it's explicit at all. What you've noted is that this Marilith stat block has an ability that very clearly only reduces penalties. To blindly assume it means more than that is making a leap of logic that I find untenable.
Entryhazard |
Again, the point was there are explicit rules when it is an option. If you change form into one of those creatures you don't get that "racial" ability. So you are unable to gain the advantage of the multiple limbs beyond 2, despite having the limbs. Without that extra little rule, you are completely unable to do more than Two weapon fighting.
But I exactly pointed out that the Marilith doesn't have an explicit ability that allows it to use more weapons, it just does and the ability only reduces the usual penalties
Skylancer4 |
All examples have stat blocks detailing what they can do and abilities such as multiweapon mastery or multiweapon fighting. All examples are monsters designed for specific purposes and work by their exceptional design above and beyond what the rules dictate for the PCs. All examples aren't PC options for play except in the most wild games. Each one of them is an exception to the normal rules of the game, and you are trying to prove the exception is the rule by positing the exception. It can't prove itself as the rule.
Each of these NPC creatures has a write up and ability to justify the additional attacks. As a human who shape changes into these shapes, you wouldn't get that unless you managed to have it prior to changing shape.
The rules are written with some basic assumptions, as evidenced by various FAQs (most notably the hands of "effort"), for PCs. When something diverges from that, there is an ability or stat block to explain as much.
Unfortunately you cannot use creatures from the bestiary to prove a point about PCs when they aren't meant to be used in the same way. Monsters break the rules constantly. If a PC option is meant to have fully functional limbs, it will most definitely be written up as such. Because that isn't the "normal" assumption for the rules the PCs run by.
Skylancer4 |
You can fight with all your arms if you don't have the feat. If that is true, then I'm not sure how feat investment reduces your capabilities.
Any options for a PC to get this ability will be stated explicitly. Even if it is that they have multiweapon fighting somehow, it will still be written out explicitly. The rules state you get an additional attack when TWF'ing. If a 2 armed PC changes into a 4 armed monster, it still has TWF'ing and the base rules state you get one additional attack. The feat multiweapon fighting is the "exception" to the base rules that grants you more. But as you are a two armed creature as a PC (with one exception it looks like) you can't qualify for the feat to take it.
You get all the natural attacks when you Poly, but nothing in the rules states you are capable of making 4 manufactured weapon attacks. I'm not saying it isn't a logical conclusion to be inferred, but the rules don't actually give that option as a general rule. It is gained through other explicit rules when it actually is possible.
Pavsdotexe |
All examples have stat blocks detailing what they can do and abilities such as multiweapon mastery or multiweapon fighting. All examples are monsters designed for specific purposes and work by their exceptional design above and beyond what the rules dictate for the PCs. All examples aren't PC options for play except in the most wild games. Each one of them is an exception to the normal rules of the game, and you are trying to prove the exception is the rule by positing the exception. It can't prove itself as the rule.
Each of these NPC creatures has a write up and ability to justify the additional attacks. As a human who shape changes into these shapes, you wouldn't get that unless you managed to have it prior to changing shape.
The rules are written with some basic assumptions, as evidenced by various FAQs (most notably the hands of "effort"), for PCs. When something diverges from that, there is an ability or stat block to explain as much.
Unfortunately you cannot use creatures from the bestiary to prove a point about PCs when they aren't meant to be used in the same way. Monsters break the rules constantly. If a PC option is meant to have fully functional limbs, it will most definitely be written up as such. Because that isn't the "normal" assumption for the rules the PCs run by.
Okay. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I think you were the one trying to use NPC statblocks to prove your point?
That Guy With A Face asked about his Eidolon, which is intended by design to have multiple arms (and use them to make attacks).
Skylancer4 |
Skylancer4 wrote:All examples have stat blocks detailing what they can do and abilities such as multiweapon mastery or multiweapon fighting. All examples are monsters designed for specific purposes and work by their exceptional design above and beyond what the rules dictate for the PCs. All examples aren't PC options for play except in the most wild games. Each one of them is an exception to the normal rules of the game, and you are trying to prove the exception is the rule by positing the exception. It can't prove itself as the rule.
Each of these NPC creatures has a write up and ability to justify the additional attacks. As a human who shape changes into these shapes, you wouldn't get that unless you managed to have it prior to changing shape.
The rules are written with some basic assumptions, as evidenced by various FAQs (most notably the hands of "effort"), for PCs. When something diverges from that, there is an ability or stat block to explain as much.
Unfortunately you cannot use creatures from the bestiary to prove a point about PCs when they aren't meant to be used in the same way. Monsters break the rules constantly. If a PC option is meant to have fully functional limbs, it will most definitely be written up as such. Because that isn't the "normal" assumption for the rules the PCs run by.
Okay. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I think you were the one trying to use NPC statblocks to prove your point?
That Guy With A Face asked about his Eidolon, which is intended by design to have multiple arms (and use them to make attacks).
No, I was explaining the probable thought process of another poster pointing out that TWF rules don't give PC characters additional attacks when they have more than two limbs and nothing explicitly stating they get them.
Monsters are just that, monsters, and function the way the stat block lists. That doesn't mean PC characters follow suit.
Entryhazard |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Still the argument "it's just for monsters" doesn't fly as a "playable" race like the Kasatha has the Multi-Armed ability only saying it has four arms and that only one of these is a primary hand. Yet it's clear it can attack 4 times.
So we are in the situation in which we have multiarmed creatures making mutiple attacks without having abilities that explicitly enable them to do so but only lift some penalties, and on the other side only abilities that add limbs without adding attacks explicitly say so.
Thus up to now the line is that multiple arm implicitly give multiple attacks, and had to be specified when an arm didn't grant an extra attack (Vestigial Limb, Trox...)
Calth |
Skylancer was kind of explaining my point, though I don't really agree with the examples used, as they confused the issue.
There is no rule that states arms=attacks. Not even for Bestiary creatures that have an unusual number of attacks. Those creatures break the PC rules, but are allowed to, because they are not PCs. (Check out the designer posts from the creature creation contests, creatures are explicitly allowed to not follow PC rules, and other posts indicate that bestiary creatures should not be used as the sole argument in a rules discussion for this reason.) There is no specific rule allowing them to make those attacks beyond sheer design fiat when making them and putting those attacks in the stat block.
The multiweapon fighting and multiweapon mastery feats/abilities that are designed for these creatures that break PC rules do not themselves grant attacks. They only reduce attack penalties.
Calth |
Still the argument "it's just for monsters" doesn't fly as a "playable" race like the Kasatha has the Multi-Armed ability only saying it has four arms and that only one of these is a primary hand. Yet it's clear it can attack 4 times.
So we are in the situation in which we have multiarmed creatures making mutiple attacks without having abilities that explicitly enable them to do so but only lift some penalties, and on the other side only abilities that add limbs without adding attacks explicitly say so.
Thus up to now the line is that multiple arm implicitly give multiple attacks, and had to be specified when an arm didn't grant an extra attack (Vestigial Limb, Trox...)
What makes you think Kasatha can make 4 attacks? Nothing in its write up says it can. The bestiary stat block doesn't allow it for the one example we have. And using the vestigial arm text as support doesn't work, as it restricts the arm more than a natural arm. With a natural arm, you are still allowed to use it for an additional natural attack, but this does not work with a vestigial arm. Redundant rules text is not an argument.
Calth |
I find amusing that a 8-RP feature does f@+~ing nothing
Because 2 extra free hands is nothing, right. Not like theres a ton of guides that promote a 2 level dip in alchemist primarily to get 1 free hand. Absolutely nothing you can do with those hands if they don't grant attacks. No shield, no metamagic rods, no somatic components, no weapon reloading, no wands, no scrolls, no potions. Nope, absolutely worthless if they don't let you break the action economy.