| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
With the addition of mutations in Bestiary 5 and Kasatha in Bestiary 4 there is becoming an increasing amount of ways for a player character to have 3 or more arms.
The multiweapon fighting feat states that it replaces two-weapon fighting for creatures with more than 2 arms but there is no build path with multiweapon fighting as a prerequisite and due to mulitweapon fighting 'replacing' TWF, creatures with more than two arms are instantly disqualified for feats such as improved TWF, Two-weapon feint, Two-weapon defense, double slice etc.
I was wondering weather there would be an FAQ clarifying the use of these feats in conjunction with mulitweapon or perhaps a new mulitweapon build path on the way?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
MWF "replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms." Were I running this, I'd have it replace as a prerequisite, too.
That being said, ITWF et al. would function the same as they do now, for me. They would add one additional attack with one off-hand weapon at the relevant iterative bonus. E.g., Main-hand attacks at +15/10/5. Off-hand attacks at +15/15/15/10/5 (with GTWF).
But as noted, there is no official ruling on how this all works, so it's very much YMMV, expect table variation, talk it over with your GM first, etc.
Yeah I think an extra attack PER arm is a bit extreme. adding one additional attack per feat seems like the way to go. would be cool to have a proper ruling on it though
|
Consider a Kasatha with BAB +15
Scenario 1: Not using its extra arms for extra attacks (MWF feat thus irrelevant) = Can make three attacks at +15, +10, and +5 with any combination of its arms (i.e. all three with one arm, each with a different arm, whatever). No penalties.
Scenario 2: No MWF and using its extra arms for extra attacks = Primary hand makes three attacks at +15/+10/+5, three off hands make one attack each at +15. Primary hand attack takes -6 penalty. Offhand attacks take -10 penalty. All penalties reduced by two if all off-hand attacks are made with light weapons.
Scenario 3: Has MWF and using its extra arms for extra attacks = Primary hand makes three attacks at +15/+10/+5, three off hands make one attack each at +15. All attacks are at -4 penalty or -2 penalty if all off-hand attacks are made with light weapons.
Whether you can then take GTWF and ITWF is disputed, but I don't think I have ever seen Paizo do so with any of their multi-armed NPCs and thus I don't think it is the intent.
Also, note that our example Kasatha above is, for the cost of one feat, getting the same number of attacks that a two-armed combatant would from all three feats (TWF, ITWF, & GTWF)... and at higher final attack bonuses (i.e. +13/+8/+3/+13/+13/+13 vs +13/+8/+3/+13/+8/+3). Two fewer feats to get better results seems plenty powerful enough to me without adding in the overkill of allowing them ITWF & GTWF as well.
As to using MWF as a pre-req... again, opinions differ. I'd probably allow MWF to substitute for the TWF AND ITWF pre-reqs on most feats (e.g. Two-Weapon Rend) and then limit those effects to just one off-hand rather than all (e.g. double slice increases Str damage for only one arm), but there will likely be considerable table variation.
@Calth, i believe taking 'extra arm' with the mutant template gives you multiweapon as a bonus feat
Obligatory mention that there is no RAW way for PCs to utilize multi-weapon fighting.
This isn't accurate. While it's very unlikely a PC will ever qualify for MWF, the introduction to the Monster feats in the Bestiary doesn't state they are off-limits for PCs. It merely says that they rarely will qualify.
Most of the following feats apply specifically to monsters, although some player characters might qualify for them (particularly Craft Construct).
There has been much discussion of this passage over the years, but the crux is that there is nothing preventing PCs from taking any of these feats, so long as they qualify. PFS is a separate matter, where choices are often restricted. As per usual, GMs can limit access to these feats, just like they can to anything ordinarily available.
But that MWF appears in the Bestiary does not mean it is inaccessible to PCs, as a matter of RAW. All RAW says on the matter is that PCs are unlikely to qualify for it.
Obligatory mention that there is no RAW way for PCs to utilize multi-weapon fighting.This isn't accurate. While it's very unlikely a PC will ever qualify for MWF, the introduction to the Monster feats in the Bestiary doesn't state they are off-limits for PCs. It merely says that they rarely will qualify.
Most of the following feats apply specifically to monsters, although some player characters might qualify for them (particularly Craft Construct).There has been much discussion of this passage over the years, but the crux is that there is nothing preventing PCs from taking any of these feats, so long as they qualify. PFS is a separate matter, where choices are often restricted. As per usual, GMs can limit access to these feats, just like they can to anything ordinarily available.
But that MWF appears in the Bestiary does not mean it is inaccessible to PCs, as a matter of RAW. All RAW says on the matter is that PCs are unlikely to qualify for it.
Any summoner, for example, can eventually qualify if they so chose.
Read my post again. I didn't say anything about not qualifying for MWF. But MWF does not grant attacks just as the TWF feat does not. So it is useless for PCs.Obligatory mention that there is no RAW way for PCs to utilize multi-weapon fighting.This isn't accurate. While it's very unlikely a PC will ever qualify for MWF, the introduction to the Monster feats in the Bestiary doesn't state they are off-limits for PCs. It merely says that they rarely will qualify.
Most of the following feats apply specifically to monsters, although some player characters might qualify for them (particularly Craft Construct).There has been much discussion of this passage over the years, but the crux is that there is nothing preventing PCs from taking any of these feats, so long as they qualify. PFS is a separate matter, where choices are often restricted. As per usual, GMs can limit access to these feats, just like they can to anything ordinarily available.
But that MWF appears in the Bestiary does not mean it is inaccessible to PCs, as a matter of RAW. All RAW says on the matter is that PCs are unlikely to qualify for it.
There's the argument that just because you have multiple arms doesn't mean you get attacks to go along with it.
At best, it was a grey area steeped in wishful thinking regarding intent. That they have 4-armed playable races implies that this ship has sailed. Kasatha's multi-armed entry explicitly says it has multiple off-hand attacks available.
Whatever. If you want to die on that hill, be my guest. Burden of proof is firmly on you in this one, though.
Multi-Armed (4 RP): Prerequisites: None; Benefit: Members of this race possess three arms. A member of this race can wield multiple weapons, but only one hand is its primary hand, and all others are off hands. It can also use its hands for other purposes that require free hands. Special: This trait can be taken up to twice. When it is taken a second time, the race gains a fourth arm.
Bolding mine
Read my post again. I didn't say anything about not qualifying for MWF. But MWF does not grant attacks just as the TWF feat does not. So it is useless for PCs.
Normal: A creature without this feat takes a –6 penalty on attacks made with its primary hand and a –10 penalty on attacks made with all of its off hands. (It has one primary hand, and all the others are off hands.) See Two-Weapon Fighting.
Emphasis mine.
The normal condition for creature with 3+ arms is covered in the rules for multi-weapon fighting. Attacks can be made with ALL off hands.
Multi weapon fighting does not grant extra attacks, the creature always has that option. Multi weapon fighting brings the penalty for using all those attacks down to a reasonable level.
Primary and off-hand do not grant attacks. Those terms govern how much damage is done. A human with 2 real hands can wield at least half a dozen effective off-hands with various weapons.Multi-Armed (4 RP): Prerequisites: None; Benefit: Members of this race possess three arms. A member of this race can wield multiple weapons, but only one hand is its primary hand, and all others are off hands. It can also use its hands for other purposes that require free hands. Special: This trait can be taken up to twice. When it is taken a second time, the race gains a fourth arm.Bolding mine
And as the entire debate about 2wf with a 2hw showed attacks are made based off of the number of hands availble to normal members that race. If extra hands don't grant extra attacks then why does the Alchemist discovery Vestigal hands call out that they don't grant extra attacks.
That's not what the rule says or means. You are extrapolating. The MWF feat governs attack penalties. It tells you how to adjust if you make those attacks. It does not in anyway grant attacks. That text line doesn't tell you to make attacks, only what to do if you can make them, as certain Bestiary creatures can. Nothing grants PCs the ability to make those attacks. Please quote any rule that explicitly says that having an off-hand grants you an attack.
A normal condition is defined.
You may not like that definition, but it is RAW.
|
|
Read my post again. I didn't say anything about not qualifying for MWF. But MWF does not grant attacks just as the TWF feat does not. So it is useless for PCs.Normal: A creature without this feat takes a –6 penalty on attacks made with its primary hand and a –10 penalty on attacks made with all of its off hands. (It has one primary hand, and all the others are off hands.) See Two-Weapon Fighting.Emphasis mine.
The normal condition for creature with 3+ arms is covered in the rules for multi-weapon fighting. Attacks can be made with ALL off hands.
Multi weapon fighting does not grant extra attacks, the creature always has that option. Multi weapon fighting brings the penalty for using all those attacks down to a reasonable level.
But again, it don't grant attacks.
Rules:
Two-Weapon Fighting
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.
Find a piece of text that is not a creature specific rule and say "If you wield multiple weapons in your off hands, you can get one extra attack per hand during a round with each of those weapons." or something similar.
The part Snowlilly bolded can be read as easily as he want to read it or as "it don't matter if you want to use your left upper arm or right lower arm as your off arm, they all suffer the same penalty.
What rule then allows a Marilith to make more than 2 attacks?
Find a piece of text that is not a creature specific rule and say "If you wield multiple weapons in your off hands, you can get one extra attack per hand during a round with each of those weapons." or something similar.
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.
Not worth arguing.
House rule it at your table if you so wish.
|
|
What rule then allows a Marilith to make more than 2 attacks?Its a bestiary creature, which, per the design team, are explicitly allowed to break PC rules.
She don't even need to break rules. She is a bestiary creature, so she has her special rules.
Specifically:
Melee: The creature's melee attacks are listed here, with its attack roll modifier listed after the attack's name followed by the damage in parentheses.
That say that number of appendages or shape don't matter. What is written in the appropriate row of the monster description matter.
|
|
Find a piece of text that is not a creature specific rule and say "If you wield multiple weapons in your off hands, you can get one extra attack per hand during a round with each of those weapons." or something similar.
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.Not worth arguing.
House rule it at your table if you so wish.
If we use your logic, the Marilith entry is wrong.
Marilith
Melee +1 longsword +24/+19/+14/+9 (2d6+8/17–20), 5 +1 longswords +24 (2d6+4/17–20), tail slap +17 (2d6+3 plus grab) or 6 slams +22 (1d8+7), tail slap +17 (2d6+3 plus grab)
Feats Bleeding Critical, Combat Expertise, Combat Reflexes, Critical Focus, Improved Critical (longsword), Improved Disarm, Power Attack, Weapon Focus (longsword)
Multiweapon Mastery (Ex) A marilith never takes penalties to her attack roll when fighting with multiple weapons.
Where is the Multiweapon Fighting feat that you say will grant her multiple attacks with multiple off hands?
Multiweapon Mastery text is very clear and it don't allow multiple attacks too.So having multiple attacks isn't part of the feat, it is part of the creature structure.
Whatever. If you want to die on that hill, be my guest. Burden of proof is firmly on you in this one, though.No, the burden is on you to show anything that relates number of arms to number of attacks. That's how Pathfinder works, you need a rule that says you can do something. There is no rule for PCs that states that having an arm gives you an attack. Doesn't exist. So the burden is on you to show the rule that means I am wrong.
The reference to MWF has already been posted.
"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 of its off hands. (It has one primary hand, and all the others are off hands.) See Two-Weapon Fighting in the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook."
If you naturally have more arms than the standard two, you can make off-hand attacks with those extra arms. As was mentioned above, this was also born out in discussions of other rules.
The Kasatha exists. It exists as a PC-playable race. It naturally has more than 2 arms. That TWF is the base, default assumption (because no playable 3+ armed creatures existed at the time) isn't really relevant. Single class characters to 20 is also the base default and the rules are written based on that assumption. It doesn't mean that assumption necessarily applies in all cases.
Find a piece of text that is not a creature specific rule and say "If you wield multiple weapons in your off hands, you can get one extra attack per hand during a round with each of those weapons." or something similar.
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.Not worth arguing.
House rule it at your table if you so wish.
If we use your logic, the Marilith entry is wrong.
Marilith
Melee +1 longsword +24/+19/+14/+9 (2d6+8/17–20), 5 +1 longswords +24 (2d6+4/17–20), tail slap +17 (2d6+3 plus grab) or 6 slams +22 (1d8+7), tail slap +17 (2d6+3 plus grab)
Feats Bleeding Critical, Combat Expertise, Combat Reflexes, Critical Focus, Improved Critical (longsword), Improved Disarm, Power Attack, Weapon Focus (longsword)
Multiweapon Mastery (Ex) A marilith never takes penalties to her attack roll when fighting with multiple weapons.Where is the Multiweapon Fighting feat that you say will grant her multiple attacks with multiple off hands?
Multiweapon Mastery text is very clear and it don't allow multiple attacks too.
So having multiple attacks isn't part of the feat, it is part of the creature structure.
Diego, this is precisely the point. The default position is that you can make the number of attacks for the number of arms you naturally have. This is true whether TWF or MWF. The Marilith doesn't need MWF to make the multiple attacks. However, without MWF, the Marilith would be taking massive penalties to its attacks with each weapon. Fortunately, it has a better ability that MWF (which reduces relevant penalties): Multiweapon Master (which removes any such penalties altogether).
All is in order.
None of that is true. There is no rule, FAQ, errata, anything that says an arm gives you an attack. The MWF feat normal text says nothing about granting any attacks, as compared to the TWF feat normal text which explicitly does.Whatever. If you want to die on that hill, be my guest. Burden of proof is firmly on you in this one, though.No, the burden is on you to show anything that relates number of arms to number of attacks. That's how Pathfinder works, you need a rule that says you can do something. There is no rule for PCs that states that having an arm gives you an attack. Doesn't exist. So the burden is on you to show the rule that means I am wrong.The reference to MWF has already been posted.
"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 of its off hands. (It has one primary hand, and all the others are off hands.) See Two-Weapon Fighting in the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook."
If you naturally have more arms than the standard two, you can make off-hand attacks with those extra arms. As was mentioned above, this was also born out in discussions of other rules.
The Kasatha exists. It exists as a PC-playable race. It naturally has more than 2 arms. That TWF is the base, default assumption (because no playable 3+ armed creatures existed at the time) isn't really relevant. Single class characters to 20 is also the base default and the rules are written based on that assumption. It doesn't mean that assumption necessarily applies in all cases.
What are you talking about?
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.
It's literally just a rehash of the two-weapon fighting rules. The benefit is that it reduces the penalties associated with the normal two-weapon fighting rules.
Normal: A creature without this feat takes a –6 penalty on attacks made with its primary hand and a –10 penalty on attacks made with all of its off hands. (It has one primary hand, and all the others are off hands.) See Two-Weapon Fighting in the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook.
This is exactly the same, except instead of referencing the one extra attack, it says you get attack with your off hands.
It states precisely the same thing. One says it for two-armed creatures, the other for 3+ armed creatures.
I understand that is your reading of things. I addressed why it isn't accurate above (why have a rule in the combat section of the CRB when no PC is ever going to have to deal with the issue?). I also didn't gloss over that first sentence; I noted that it was a precise restatement of the ordinary rule.
That the TWF feat quotes essentially the whole two-weapon fighting rule is helpful, but unnecessary. The only thing that is actually relevant to that feat is the language regarding penalties because that is the only thing the feat impacts. This is precisely the same with MWF. MWF then mirrors the same "this is how the penalties would ordinarily work" language, but adapted for more than two arms.
In so doing, it explicitly mentions making attacks with all the arms the creature has. Ergo, all arms can be used to attack. And this is a feat that is available to PCs. As I mentioned above, the Bestiary specifically contemplates this when it notes that PCs could qualify for them.
So, we know PCs can qualify for MWF if they meet all the prereqs. We know the normal state for creatures attacking with all their arms is to incur penalties as listed in the MWF feat Normal section. We know because of that that multi-armed creatures can therefore attack with all of their arms.
I'm not seeing where the problem is.
|
|
Find a piece of text that is not a creature specific rule and say "If you wield multiple weapons in your off hands, you can get one extra attack per hand during a round with each of those weapons." or something similar.
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.Not worth arguing.
House rule it at your table if you so wish.
If we use your logic, the Marilith entry is wrong.
Marilith
Melee +1 longsword +24/+19/+14/+9 (2d6+8/17–20), 5 +1 longswords +24 (2d6+4/17–20), tail slap +17 (2d6+3 plus grab) or 6 slams +22 (1d8+7), tail slap +17 (2d6+3 plus grab)
Feats Bleeding Critical, Combat Expertise, Combat Reflexes, Critical Focus, Improved Critical (longsword), Improved Disarm, Power Attack, Weapon Focus (longsword)
Multiweapon Mastery (Ex) A marilith never takes penalties to her attack roll when fighting with multiple weapons.Where is the Multiweapon Fighting feat that you say will grant her multiple attacks with multiple off hands?
Multiweapon Mastery text is very clear and it don't allow multiple attacks too.
So having multiple attacks isn't part of the feat, it is part of the creature structure.
Diego, this is precisely the point. The default position is that you can make the number of attacks for the number of arms you naturally have. This is true whether TWF or MWF. The Marilith doesn't need MWF to make the multiple attacks. However, without MWF, the Marilith would be taking massive penalties to its attacks with each weapon. Fortunately, it has a better ability that MWF (which reduces relevant penalties): Multiweapon Master (which removes any such penalties altogether).
All is in order.
You guys are trying to link the number of appendages to the number of attacks.
Kasatha (bestiary) Melee sai +3 (1d4+1) or unarmed strike +3 (1d6+1) or flurry of blows +2/+2 (1d6+1) - 4 arms, 1 attack. Or 2 attacks with flurry of blows.
D'ziriak This four-armed creature looks like a cross between a human and a black and ochre termite. Its body and arms display glowing runes. Melee 2 claws +6 (1d6+1 plus grab) - 4 arms, 2 claw attacks.
Xill Melee short swords +13/+13/+8 (1d6+3/19–20), claw +13 (1d4+3 plus grab), bite +7 (1d3+1 plus paralysis), or 4 claws +13 (1d4+3 plus grab), bite +12 (1d3+3 plus paralysis) - Multiweapon Mastery (Ex) A xill never takes penalties to an attack roll when fighting with multiple weapons, and treats claws as primary attacks even when also wielding weapons. - 4 arms, 1 weapon attack
Four-Armed Sahuagin: These mutants have four arms, giving them two additional claw attacks. Four-armed sahuagin gain Multiattack and Toughness as bonus feats, and gain the multiweapon mastery ability. They have a base CR of 3. Four-armed sahuagin excel as barbarians, fighters, and rangers. - adding 2 arms give 2 claw attacks, not weapon attacks
So, where is this "default position"?
|
|
I understand that is your reading of things. I addressed why it isn't accurate above (why have a rule in the combat section of the CRB when no PC is ever going to have to deal with the issue?). I also didn't gloss over that first sentence; I noted that it was a precise restatement of the ordinary rule.
That the TWF feat quotes essentially the whole two-weapon fighting rule is helpful, but unnecessary. The only thing that is actually relevant to that feat is the language regarding penalties because that is the only thing the feat impacts. This is precisely the same with MWF. MWF then mirrors the same "this is how the penalties would ordinarily work" language, but adapted for more than two arms.
In so doing, it explicitly mentions making attacks with all the arms the creature has. Ergo, all arms can be used to attack. And this is a feat that is available to PCs. As I mentioned above, the Bestiary specifically contemplates this when it notes that PCs could qualify for them.
So, we know PCs can qualify for MWF if they meet all the prereqs. We know the normal state for creatures attacking with all their arms is to incur penalties as listed in the MWF feat Normal section. We know because of that that multi-armed creatures can therefore attack with all of their arms.
I'm not seeing where the problem is.
Simply that it don't state what you say. You are using wishful thinking, not reading the text.
Pathfinder is a permissive system (up to a point). You don't get permission, you can't do a thing.Getting an extra attack require a specific permission, it is not something that you can infer "because it seem logic". Especially when there are plenty of examples of creatures that don't get the same number of attacks as the available appendages.
Which is where Vestigal arms comes back in by specifically pointing out no extra attacks are gained we see a precedent set that under normal circumstances extra arms means extra attacks granted.
|
|
Which is where Vestigal arms comes back in by specifically pointing out no extra attacks are gained we see a precedent set that under normal circumstances extra arms means extra attacks granted.
Note that the rule about vestigial arms don't only disallow armed attack, but natural attacks too.
That change the question and make Multiweapon Fighting irrelevant.
You guys are trying to link the number of appendages to the number of attacks.
Kasatha (bestiary) Melee sai +3 (1d4+1) or unarmed strike +3 (1d6+1) or flurry of blows +2/+2 (1d6+1) - 4 arms, 1 attack. Or 2 attacks with flurry of blows.
D'ziriak This four-armed creature looks like a cross between a human and a black and ochre termite. Its body and arms display glowing runes. Melee 2 claws +6 (1d6+1 plus grab) - 4 arms, 2 claw attacks.
Xill Melee short swords +13/+13/+8 (1d6+3/19–20), claw +13 (1d4+3 plus grab), bite +7 (1d3+1 plus paralysis), or 4 claws +13 (1d4+3 plus grab), bite +12 (1d3+3 plus paralysis) - Multiweapon Mastery (Ex) A xill never takes penalties to an attack roll when fighting with multiple weapons, and treats claws as primary attacks even when also wielding weapons. - 4 arms, 1 weapon attack
Four-Armed Sahuagin: These mutants have four arms, giving them two additional claw attacks. Four-armed sahuagin gain Multiattack and Toughness as bonus feats, and gain the multiweapon mastery ability. They have a base CR of 3. Four-armed sahuagin excel as barbarians, fighters, and rangers. - adding 2 arms give 2 claw attacks, not weapon attacks
So, where is this "default position"?
It's not infrequent that stat blocks are made without all possible combinations. I think mongrelman is one I've referred to in the past in another debate regarding the interaction between natural and manufactured weapons.
The xill only has two short swords. Is it your position that they wouldn't be able to attack with all four if they had statted them with four? Perhaps they did it for flavor or balance reasons. Who knows? But its version of Multiweapon Mastery allows it to combine its claws with weapon attacks at no penalty, so why would they need more swords?
I'm not sure what the point is regarding four-armed Sahuagin. Their base is being able to make four claw attacks (with natural attacks usually being superior to manufactured attacks, and the default for monster classes). Plus, giving them extra arms doesn't say anything about claw attacks. They specify how it works with claw attacks because that's nonobvious. How it works with weapon attacks should be patent, particularly since they get multiweapon mastery, as well.
Regarding the D'ziriak: "The average d'ziriak is 7 feet tall and has four arms, two legs, a termite-like abdomen, and a mandibled visage somewhere between that of insect and human. Two of its arms are large and possess sharp claws, while the other two are relatively small and used for fine manipulations, not combat." Their entry specifically states that, even though they have four arms, only two are relevant for combat.
Specifically re: the Kasatha, it isn't statted out with full attack combos. Note that it's statted out with two sais, even though the melee line only has it attacking once (and doesn't have the entries for TWF, either). So again, that the stat block doesn't bear out all possible combinations is of no moment to whether or not the default position is that you can attack with all your arms, even if you have more than 2. Also note that a Kasatha has neither MWF or Multiweapon Mastery, so they wouldn't put full attacks in the stat block because making four attacks would be massively suboptimal. They put Flurry stats in the block because the Kasatha in the Bestiary 4 has a level of Monk.
The italicized portion is the problem. You are making an assumption there that is not supported by the rules. The MWF states that if X happens, you adjust by Z, as opposed to Y, which is the normal adjustment. You are then assuming the ability to do X. But there is no rule giving PCs the ability to do X, rather some bestiary creatures, by virtue of their statblock, have the ability to do X. Compare this to TWF. The TWF feat references a rule that grants X which is normally adjusted by Y, but now you adjust by Z. No assumption of the ability to do X, it explicitly references an actual rule.
Simply that it don't state what you say. You are using wishful thinking, not reading the text.
Pathfinder is a permissive system (up to a point). You don't get permission, you can't do a thing.
Getting an extra attack require a specific permission, it is not something that you can infer "because it seem logic". Especially when there are plenty of examples of creatures that don't get the same number of attacks as the available appendages.
That a rule is understandable from implication does not make it less valid or less permissive. I am comfortable with the support I've put forward.
|
Diego Rossi I would like to point out that your 4 example creatures were a bit misleading. And a bit incorrect.
The Xill has 2 attacks with short swords, an attack with a Bite and a claw. The other arm is holding a heavy shield, which is also a weapon but is used defensively and thus not on the attack line due to lack of feats and to keep a static AC.
Another such creature used in an AP actively uses.. multiple weapons and all 4 arms.
The Kasatha mentioned is a monk and thus cannot attack more than an additional time with Flurry of blows regardless of arms. The rest are not mentioned because of unnecessary space to note an ineffective combat choice for that particular example. Just as you would not mention the unarmed strike of a 10th level fighter who has a Greatsword and no feats to the fight unarmed. It doesnt mean Fighters cannot attack, they simply take the penalties involved.
The D'ziriak you did not read the creature. They say their hands on the lower portion are specifically unable to be used for combat, the top pair are functional.
And lastly for the Sahuagin, they are given more natural attacks.. along with two fully functional arms.