This already exists in a round-about way.
There's the Alchemist Discovery Vestigial Arm. And the feat Extra Discovery.
Correct, but with 2 extra arms you could wield 2 two-handed weapons, or a two-handed weapon, a light weapon, and a shield.
I could see a level 8 discovery allowing you to make extra attacks with your vestigial arms.
But it sounds like you want a class unrestricted feat. I can't see that happening because there has to be some reason for a character to gain an extra arm. Maybe you're a caster that has mastered transmutation (spell focus: transmutation), maybe you're from a race that could feasibly grow extra limbs (treefolk). Whatever it may be, your feats would have to have some sort of restriction.
So, have the first feat be able to be taken at any level and give it the same wording as Vestigial Arm and with the special of being able to take it twice. Then have another feat that requires CL 8 or BAB +8 that allows you to use your extra arms for extra attacks. If you want more arms than that, then maybe a capstone feat at CL 15 or BAB +15 that gives 2 more.
Or you can try to convince your GM to let you play a Synthesist or Aegis.
I wouldn't recommend it. Getting extra attacks is a big deal. More importantly, there's no "flavor" reason why a feat would suddenly give you extra off-hands.
What exactly are you trying to accomplish Anarchy_Kanya? Mechanically and flavor-wise?
Well, given the rules weirdness around multi armed two weapon fighting and the hard limits on attacks based on 'metaphorical hands', I would guess it has something to do with that.
I could see a feat to allow you to use a two handed weapon and two weapon fight with a non-hand weapon. It was allowable in 3.5, so it was fine up until the FAQ that invented 'hands of effort'.
Or Anarchy_Kanya could just house-rule the old 3.5 rules back in and allow two weapon fighting to work with any two weapons you can wield at the same time.
Getting extra attacks is a big deal.Is it that big of a deal? Compared to just two-handing? To really get good benefits from it you'd need to also invest into TWF.
When has getting extra attacks NOT been a big deal? There's already feats that give you extra attacks for Two-Weapon Fighting. If you want to buff TWF, there's better ways to do that than give extra attacks.
I second what Scudd422 asked. I don't understand your design goal. If you want a character that can wield an extra weapon in their teeth or something, that's fine as a trait or feat. However, having the feat give you extra attacks is too much.
What exactly are you trying to accomplish Anarchy_Kanya? Mechanically and flavor-wise?Uhm... give PCs the ability to wield more than just two weapons because it's cool, but without looking like a freak?
Let's try this approach to start what would a character that has what you want actually LOOK LIKE when doing it? What would be wielding the third weapon?
Once the cosmetic angle is out of the way, what are the mechanical effects you're seeking?
What exactly are you trying to accomplish Anarchy_Kanya? Mechanically and flavor-wise?Uhm... give PCs the ability to wield more than just two weapons because it's cool, but without looking like a freak?
Let's try this approach to start what would a character that has what you want actually LOOK LIKE when doing it? What would be wielding the third weapon?
Once the cosmetic angle is out of the way, what are the mechanical effects you're seeking?
It's not hard really. Two kicks, 2 claws, a bite, gore, two wings and a tail are a valid set of attacks. Why would boot blade, boot blade, armor spikes and boulder helmet be unimaginable?
When has getting extra attacks NOT been a big deal?When they're weak?
There's already feats that give you extra attacks for Two-Weapon Fighting. If you want to buff TWF, there's better ways to do that than give extra attacks.I'm not buffing TWF. It's already buffed in our games. I'm trying to make a flavor concept to be possible and effective.
I second what Scudd422 asked. I don't understand your design goal.Already answered.
If you want a character that can wield an extra weapon in their teeth or something, that's fine as a trait or feat. However, having the feat give you extra attacks is too much.What's the point of an extra weapon if you don't gain anything from it? Besides, as been pointed out, it's already possible to gain more off-hand attacks, so I don't see why a feat would be that much more overpowered. I can always make it restricted to two-handed creatures only or something like that.
Would something like a -2 penalty to all attacks be enough a drawback? Maybe -4? (per additional off-hand, of course)Do the cosmetics really matter? It's a fantasy game. Warriors are supposed to do fantastic things. As I already mentioned, there are some weapons that don't use hands. The above mentioned boot blades, armor spikes, that helmet thing or a barbazu beard are already 4 additional weapons (I think the beard and helmet take the same slot). Or you can just make unarmed strikes.Let's try this approach to start what would a character that has what you want actually LOOK LIKE when doing it? What would be wielding the third weapon?
Once the cosmetic angle is out of the way, what are the mechanical effects you're seeking?
They matter in that they help define what the OP is looking for. It's one of the ways you distinguish Rapid Shot from Improved Critical
No need to be snarky.
Note that I answered your question, two times (although the first time was a bit non-specific).
I don't need help with defining what I'm looking for. I already found it. And from the responses I've gathered that it might be a bit too strong as a feat. So now all I need to do is work on making the feat more balanced.
As it stands now the feat would give one "off-hand" for a -2 penalty to all attacks and an "only two-handed races" restriction. Sounds good?
the closest thing to compare it with would be two-weapon fighting. As it is, it's considerably more powerful, as TWF costs a minimum of -2 from all attacks to get ONE extra attack. That's with a restriction on weapons used in the main and off hands.
(I think the beard and helmet take the same slot)
Note that gore and bite both work at the same time, as can be seen in double digit monster entries. I see no reason that a helmet and beard wouldn't work the same.
the closest thing to compare it with would be two-weapon fighting. As it is, it's considerably more powerful, as TWF costs a minimum of -2 from all attacks to get ONE extra attack. That's with a restriction on weapons used in the main and off hands.No need to be snarky.
Note that I answered your question, two times (although the first time was a bit non-specific).
I don't need help with defining what I'm looking for. I already found it. And from the responses I've gathered that it might be a bit too strong as a feat. So now all I need to do is work on making the feat more balanced.
As it stands now the feat would give one "off-hand" for a -2 penalty to all attacks and an "only two-handed races" restriction. Sounds good?
Well the closest thing would be MWF not TWF. Or rapid shot. Or how you can combine rapid shot and MWF/TWF.
So is it REALLY more powerful than rapid shot? Doesn't seem "considerably more powerful" to me. In fact, it sounds like equivalent to a melee version of rapid shot...
I'm always baffled when someone creates a thread asking "Hey, is this homebrew idea balanced?" and then adamantly insists it's balanced when several people say "No."
I'm always baffled when someone creates a thread asking "Hey, is this homebrew idea balanced?" and then adamantly insists it's balanced when several people say "No."
Those several people haven't shown how it's more unbalanced than existing feats. How is his feat, -2 to hit for an extra off hand, more unbalanced than rapid shot, -2 to hit for an extra attack?
It's limited to non-hand weapons and stacks minuses with TWF. As long as it came with the 'can't take rapid shot And new feat', I don't see how it alters balance.
Heck in 3.5/early pathfinder you could TWF with a two handed weapon and a non-hand weapon. With his feat it's at an additional -2...
Does the feat give an extra hand of effort?
Right now (unless it's changed again) you have two "hands of effort" and if those are both occupied then you can't use something that uses a "hand of effort" to do something.
For example currently if you are two handing a weapon you can't also two weapon fight, as both "hands" are already occupied even if you do not actually need a hand for the second weapon.
A feat that allows this to break in a specific way (such as one that lets you two hand attack and still get an off hand attack) with a specific set up probably would not be game breaking (say a feat that lets you use an earthbreaker two handed and a klar as an off hand weapon at the same time, perhaps requiring two weapon fighting, and weapon focus in both weapons).
It all comes down to the actual rules and what the actual benefit is.
For example I have some homebrew style feats, that allows you to use blade boots as natural weapons while using two weapon fighting with punching daggers (the top tier of the style gives a limited form of pounce).
It requires nimble moves and acrobatic steps as well as two weapon fighting as prerequisites though, all told an expensive style to get into for a limited effect.
I'm always baffled when someone creates a thread asking "Hey, is this homebrew idea balanced?" and then adamantly insists it's balanced when several people say "No."Those several people haven't shown how it's more unbalanced than existing feats. How is his feat, -2 to hit for an extra off hand, more unbalanced than rapid shot, -2 to hit for an extra attack?
It's limited to non-hand weapons and stacks minuses with TWF. As long as it came with the 'can't take rapid shot And new feat', I don't see how it alters balance.
Heck in 3.5/early pathfinder you could TWF with a two handed weapon and a non-hand weapon. With his feat it's at an additional -2...
You're the only one I see making that argument. The argument is flawed because gaining an extra off-hand is not as powerful as Rapid Shot. An extra off-hand grants many great benefits beyond an extra attack when TWFing. It's one of the reasons vestigial arm is so good of an alchemist discovery that many players dip two levels into alchemist just to get it despite it not granting extra attacks. So if you're saying a feat that grants you an extra off-hand is fine because Rapid Shot exists, you're following faulty logic. The fact you could do it in 3.5e doesn't help the argument either.
I do agree the FAQ is a little screwy. A more sensible ruling would allow you to TWF with a greatsword and armor spikes, but at the cost of not adding 50% of your Strength modifier to the greatsword's damage roll. This stays consistent with how natural attacks, double weapons, and some other special attack rules work.
An extra off-hand grants many great benefits beyond an extra attack when TWFing.Like what?
Scud442 already pointed out several of them. You can wield a two-handed weapon and use a shield at the same time. You can use a bow and have a melee weapon ready so you threaten. You have an extra hand to carry additional weapons so you don't have to worry about weapon juggling. It would let you dual-wield hand crossbows or one-handed firearms, something a lot of people really want more accessible. It would be amazing for switch-hitter builds. You could have a potion, rod, or wand ready. A magus can use the hand for spell combat. It allows you to avoid grappling penalties.
All of these benefits are so significant that many players go out of their way to get them in one form or another. I spent a year playing a four-armed character and designed a class that gains a weapon that doesn't use up a hand. I know the benefits well.
Besides, a feat that lets you carry a weapon or item in your teeth has some pretty cool flavor, even without an extra attack.
@Anarchy_Kanya
I thought you meant "off-hand" as in an additional attack at a penalty, was this correct? Or did you mean an additional arm/hand, which many posts here seem to indicate?
Getting an additional off-hand attack would be rather simple through the use of natural attacks. There are already many ways to gain natural attacks (such as bloodline powers or alchemist discoveries), but there aren't many to gain actual additional attacks. This is probably because an additional attack with your main weapon would also benefit from the enhancements you have put on it.
That is also a limiting factor of TWF. It forces you to use two weapons and therefore split your gold between those two. So if you want an additional attack you would either need to get a natural attack or create a feat with the same limitations as TWF.
*****
Feral Fighting (Combat)
You have managed to imitate the head movements of a snake, wolf, or another animal with a bite attack, and can use this knowledge in combat.
Prerequisites: Dex 15
Benefit: You may wield a dagger (or any other simple light melee weapon which deals piercing damage) with your teeth and you do not provoke when attacking with it. When making a full-attack action, you can attack one additional time this round at your highest bonus with your wielded dagger. All of your attack rolls take a –2 penalty when using Feral Fighting.
*****
Oh, and credits to Cyrad for the whole "holding it with your teeth" idea.
Alternate idea:
Kick them while their down
Prerequisites: Power attack, two weapon fighting
Benefit: when you knock an opponent prone while full attacking with a two handed weapon, you may make an unarmed attack with your feet. This attack is at you full bab -2, and ay only be made once a round. If you are using weapons attached to your feet (such as a bladed boot) you may make the attack with that weapon instead of an unarmed strike.
The feat's purpose is only to give a character the ability to use an additional weapon, thus allowing him to Multiweapon Fight.
Alternate idea:
Kick them while their down
Prerequisites: Power attack, two weapon fighting
Benefit: when you knock an opponent prone while full attacking with a two handed weapon, you may make an unarmed attack with your feet. This attack is at you full bab -2, and ay only be made once a round. If you are using weapons attached to your feet (such as a bladed boot) you may make the attack with that weapon instead of an unarmed strike.
This already exists: Vicious Stomp
Ok, that stuff aside. I think the best way to accomplish what you're going for is to have items like the Helm of the Mammoth Lord that give you extra attacks that count as natural attacks. A blade boot could give you a claw attack or just count as a secondary attack of 1d4. Or if you do want to go for sword-chucks, just add something silly like a weapon chain that allows you to attach a weapon to another weapon letting you use the secondary weapon as a secondary attack and give a -2 penalty to the primary weapon.
In the rules, you can use any natural attacks you have in combination with any of your normal attacks, but all your natural attacks count as secondary attacks and hit with an additional -5 penalty. For a balanced homebrew feat to go along with these items:
Multiattack Proficiency
Prerequisites: Combat Expertise[/b]
Benefit: Your secondary attacks with natural weapons or special equipment take only a –2 penalty.
Normal: Without this feat, your secondary attacks with natural weapons or special equipment take a –5 penalty.
Because how the hell do you envision your guys to be using these extra weapons? Are they juggling them? Controlling them with their minds? Holding a sword between each finger like a demented wolverine?
You haven't really given us much to work with. All of the above suggestions are based off of what we think your end goal is while trying to keep it in the realm of what is somewhat physically possible.
I gave you options! If it's extra gear, like boot blades or shoulder spikes, then come up with stats for the gear and treat the extra attacks like secondary attacks. I also gave you an option for attaching a weapon to another weapon.
Also, "cosmetics" is the most important part! You don't go straight from "What if: more weapons?" to "make a feat!" You need to first ask and then answer "How?" If that answer is "Sword-chucks!" then we have something to work with it.
First of, that was already answered multiple times by me and other posters. For Celestia's Sake, you even mention them yourself in your earlier post!
Second of, this is fantasy. Physically possible doesn't matter.
Third of, the cosmetics/fluff of it doesn't matter. I'm asking about mechanical reasons, which, BTW, you have yet to privide.
So, no offence, but is there anything useful you'd like to add, or are you just going to restate the same, already answered and irrelevant, issues that have barely anything to do with this discussion?
Frankly, your suggestion just seems unnecessarily complicated and there for no other reason than you not being able to imagine someone fighting with 3 weapons.
How you describe what you want also seems a bit nebulous and sometimes self contradictory. In an earlier post, you said, "I'm trying to make a flavor concept to be possible and effective." But here, you say you only care about mechanical benefits.
Except it's not because that's not what I said. What I actually said was that I want to focus on the mechanical part of the feat that I'm making. I stated what I want the feat to do and now I'm looking to balance it. Not change it entirely - balance it.
I'll keep it simple: a feat that grants you an extra off-hand (complete with extra off-hand attack) is not "balanced." Even at high levels, such a feat would have incredible valuable and invalidates core feats designed specifically for granting off-hand attacks. You will have to compromise (change it) or give it feat tax. Lots of feat tax.
Going back to the original questions, then.
*****
Would a feat that gives an additional "off-hand" be worth it, too strong, or maybe too weak?
That all depends on the tradeoff for using the feat. If there isn't any penalty, why would anyone ever not take/use this feat?
What if that one feat scaled, giving additional "off-hands" every few levels?
I sincerely believe that would make the feat vastly overpowered. If more attacks are to be given, then it should require additional feats. (For example: TWF and Improved TWF)
Also, what level do you think would be appropriate to give such an option to PCs?
TWF doesn't have a BAB restriction. Neither do Rapid Shot. But Rapid shot does have a feat requirement, which often means that it can't be taken at the first levels. As additional attacks are incredibly valuable as your BAB is low, you could set a higher BAB to avoid early level PC's with far too much dmg. BAB 6 or 11 is what I would choose.
*****
The next thing to consider is how other feats are affected by implementing this new feat. Should you be able to use it with Rapid Shot/TWF, or does it instead fill some kind of niche?
*****
If this feat exists (and doesn't have a restriction), it would be probably be used in every martial build.
The existing feats all have restrictions in place which have prevented two-handers to gain additional attacks. If this feat were to bypass that decision, then it must be allowed to be taken by everyone to not upset game balance.
And really, if everyone takes this feat, then what is the point of making it? It is a optimal choice. It would only make everyone stronger.
No need to apologize, there have to be atleast two at fault for a miscommunication to be made. The one who made the assumption, and the one who made it possible.
Anyway, taking a feat granting an additional attack isn't a question of "do I need it?", it is a question of "is it worth it?". The penalties are the one thing deciding the worth of the feat, and they should be part of the calculation of the feat's strength.
At a minimum, the feat would need Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting as prerequisites. At any level, getting an extra off-hand with all its benefits is significantly better than getting an extra off-hand attack at a penalty.
At a minimum, the feat would need Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting as prerequisites.I might be confusing some rules or maybe it's something from 3.5, but I think TWF becomes MWF if you somehow gain more hands. And if that's not the case, I was thinking about ruling that it does, because I want it to interact with TWF in a synergistic manner. So, if TWF/ITWF/GTWF becomes MWF/IMWF/GTWF, it means that with the TWF chain this feat will give 3 attacks, although two of them will have a significant penalty, not to mention the penalty to all attacks. But I have a feeling that's still too strong. Hm. I was hoping I could make it so it was possible to not only gain additional "off-hand(s)", but also more attacks with the "off-hand(s)", like with the TWF chain. That way potential MW Fighters have the option to either use multiple different weapons, or attack faster with fewer weapons.
I guess I could just make a seperate feat chain for getting more attacks from the extra "off-hand(s)", something like Improved Extra Off-Hand/Greater Extra Off-Hand.
You're right that gaining extra off-hands changes your Two-Weapon Fighting feat into Multiweapon Fighting. This is why I said you need to have this homebrew feat have the whole TWF feat chain as a prerequisite.
If you have Two-Weapon Fighting, ITWF gives you an off-hand attack at a -7 penalty.
Your homebrew feat would give them an off-hand attack at a -2 penalty and bestow all the benefits of having an extra hand. Your feat is way too powerful unless you change it or cripple it with a staggeringly high feat requirement.
bestow all the benefits of having an extra hand.Except it wouldn't, because as I said it doesn't give hands, just attacks.
If TWF does indeed change into MWF then this feat will give 3 attacks when you take it if it'll have ITWF and GTWF as prereqs.
You said you wanted the feat to give extra off-hands. So all your feat does is give extra off-hand attacks?
You said you wanted the feat to give extra off-hands. So all your feat does is give extra off-hand attacks?bestow all the benefits of having an extra hand.Except it wouldn't, because as I said it doesn't give hands, just attacks.
If TWF does indeed change into MWF then this feat will give 3 attacks when you take it if it'll have ITWF and GTWF as prereqs.
Yeah, exactly. I think many got caught up on the use of "off-hand" in the OP.
I believe that what Kanya is after is another TWF. She meant "off-hand" as in using other limbs/limb than your main weapon's.TWF adds one "off-hand" and therefore allows you to make another attack, with the requirement that you use a secondary weapon wielded with a second limb.
"If a new feat were to be made, which also created an "off-hand" as the one granted by TWF, how strong would it be?" - This is the question asked in this thread.
(If I am putting words in your mouth, feel free to correct me, Kanya)
TWF adds one "off-hand" and therefore allows you to make another attack, with the requirement that you use a secondary weapon wielded with a second limb.
This is wrong. TWF doesn't add an off-hand. A first level character can make two attacks by using a weapon in his/her "off-hand." (Rules: "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. 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 when you fight this way.") If you have a high enough BAB, you can make two attacks, one with each hand, without any penalties at all. (Right hand sword at +6, left hand mace at +1; check the FAQs.).
What you can't do is use three weapons (e.g., add a roundhouse kick to the mix), because you have only have two hands worth of effort or something. You also can't use a two-handed weapon and a kick for the same reason, despite the fact that every McDojo across the world teaches this. (Look at about 0:30.)
I don't think a feat that lets you use a two-handed sword and a boulder helmet, a spear and a kick, even paired swords and a spiked gauntlet, would be overpowered.
Uhm, yeah? Was that not clear when my posts constantly were talking about attacks, weapons, TWF/MWF or straight out stated that the feat isn't intended to give arms? You even talked only about attacks, at least for the first part of the thread.You said you wanted the feat to give extra off-hands. So all your feat does is give extra off-hand attacks?bestow all the benefits of having an extra hand.Except it wouldn't, because as I said it doesn't give hands, just attacks.
If TWF does indeed change into MWF then this feat will give 3 attacks when you take it if it'll have ITWF and GTWF as prereqs.
It bears so much elaboration because I'm struggling to understand the point of your homebrew feat if all it does is give extra off-hand attacks. The ITWF/GTWF feat line exists entirely to grant extra off-hand attacks. So another feat, independent of this feat chain, that does the same thing but better doesn't make any sense to me.