Multiweapon fighting path


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 164 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

fretgod99 wrote:


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.

Under pathfinder, it definitely makes it less permissive. That's how Pathfinder works. There actually has to be a rule someplace, not just reading into some text what you want to see.


Calth wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:


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.

Under pathfinder, it definitely makes it less permissive. That's how Pathfinder works. There actually has to be a rule someplace, not just reading into some text what you want to see.

That's not how rules work. If something is clear by implication, it is equally valid.


fretgod99 wrote:
Calth wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:


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.

Under pathfinder, it definitely makes it less permissive. That's how Pathfinder works. There actually has to be a rule someplace, not just reading into some text what you want to see.

That's not how rules work. If something is clear by implication, it is equally valid.

First, its not clear by implication, and again, that's not how a permissive ruleset works anyways. In Pathfinder, to do something, you explicitly need a rule stating you can. If you are making up things that aren't written in the Pathfinder rule books, its called a house rule.


To get pedantic then what rule allows you to breathe? We can imply you can breathe because we have rules about holding your breath and what happens if you inhale certain poisons but not one stating you can breathe to my knowledge.


Talonhawke wrote:
To get pedantic then what rule allows you to breathe? We can imply you can breathe because we have rules about holding your breath and what happens if you inhale certain poisons but not one stating you can breathe to my knowledge.

Ah yes, resorting to one of the well known rules holes in Pathfinder. Always fun seeing this come up, as it means the opposite side has no relevant argument. Basically, yes, its a mistake. Just because they screwed up some rules doesn't change how the system is supposed to work. And yes, RAW, once your dead you there is nothing stopping you from taking actions again, in case you want another example.

And technically, the type rules are sufficient, as they at least say the creature breathes.


Calth wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Calth wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:


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.

Under pathfinder, it definitely makes it less permissive. That's how Pathfinder works. There actually has to be a rule someplace, not just reading into some text what you want to see.

That's not how rules work. If something is clear by implication, it is equally valid.
First, its not clear by implication, and again, that's not how a permissive ruleset works anyways. In Pathfinder, to do something, you explicitly need a rule stating you can. If you are making up things that aren't written in the Pathfinder rule books, its called a house rule.

I'm not making things up though. That a thing is allowed by inference does not make it "made up". This isn't a house rule.


Read People of the stars. It talks about the Kasatha. It states they have a primary hand and three off hands. Then it went on to talk about a Ranger Archtype that uses two bows. They stated a Kasatha can take all the Two weapon fighting feats to reduce the penalty for using two bows.
So by that logic Multi Weapon fighting is the first feat they should pick up then Greater and Improved Two weapon fighting. So at first level Kasatha using four light weapons has four attacks. One from his primary hand, one from all of his off hands. As they go up in levels that number improves depending on his BAB and feats. A seventh level fighter with both MultiWeapon fighting and Improved Two Weapon fighting has 8 attacks.


fretgod99 wrote:
Calth wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Calth wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:


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.

Under pathfinder, it definitely makes it less permissive. That's how Pathfinder works. There actually has to be a rule someplace, not just reading into some text what you want to see.

That's not how rules work. If something is clear by implication, it is equally valid.
First, its not clear by implication, and again, that's not how a permissive ruleset works anyways. In Pathfinder, to do something, you explicitly need a rule stating you can. If you are making up things that aren't written in the Pathfinder rule books, its called a house rule.
I'm not making things up though. That a thing is allowed by inference does not make it "made up". This isn't a house rule.

Inference literally means it is made up. An inference is an educated guess guided by assumptions from other information.

Liberty's Edge

Derek Dalton wrote:

Read People of the stars. It talks about the Kasatha. It states they have a primary hand and three off hands. Then it went on to talk about a Ranger Archtype that uses two bows. They stated a Kasatha can take all the Two weapon fighting feats to reduce the penalty for using two bows.

So by that logic Multi Weapon fighting is the first feat they should pick up then Greater and Improved Two weapon fighting. So at first level Kasatha using four light weapons has four attacks. One from his primary hand, one from all of his off hands. As they go up in levels that number improves depending on his BAB and feats. A seventh level fighter with both MultiWeapon fighting and Improved Two Weapon fighting has 8 attacks.

Actually it say:

PRD wrote:


Twin Bows (Ex): At 1st level, a bow nomad can simultaneously wield a combination of two of any of the following ranged weapons: shortbow, longbow, and their composite versions. When a bow nomad makes a full attack with two bows, two weapon penalties apply and can be offset with Two-Weapon Fighting feats. Since bows aren’t light weapons, a bow nomad with Two-Weapon Fighting takes a –4 penalty on attacks with each of her bows. Extra attacks from other sources, such as those granted by Manyshot or Rapid Shot, can be applied to only one of the wielded bows per round. This ability replaces wild empathy.

Several instances of two. Zero instances of multi.

He is fighting with 2 weapons and applying 2 weapon combat and the Two-Weapon Fighting feats. Not multi weapon combat or Multiweapon Fighting.

Inferring something about how multi weapon combat should apply from that as no value.

If we apply Multiweapon Fighting to wielding 2 bows that way we get that he is using one bow with one primary and one secondary hand and the other with 2 secondary hands.
So what we should do? Stack the penalties?


Inference wrote:
a conclusion or opinion that is formed because of known facts or evidence

Calling drawing an inference "making something up" is as baffling as it is woefully inaccurate. Drawing inferences is a necessary component of logical analysis.

Liberty's Edge

fretgod99 wrote:
Inference wrote:
a conclusion or opinion that is formed because of known facts or evidence
Calling drawing an inference "making something up" is as baffling as it is woefully inaccurate. Drawing inferences is a necessary component of logical analysis.

When you speak of a rule set where the rules say what is allowed, inferring that if rule A allow A1 it allow B1 too is "making something up".


Diego Rossi wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Inference wrote:
a conclusion or opinion that is formed because of known facts or evidence
Calling drawing an inference "making something up" is as baffling as it is woefully inaccurate. Drawing inferences is a necessary component of logical analysis.
When you speak of a rule set where the rules say what is allowed, inferring that if rule A allow A1 it allow B1 too is "making something up".

Only if there is no logical basis for making the connection between A1 and B1. That's not the case here, so again, I'm not making anything up.

This is not dissimilar to the Sneak Attack from Range debate that was only just recently finally settled. The only reason there was a debate was because it required some level of inference (not much, but some) to demonstrate that flanking does in fact require the attack to be a melee attack. But because it wasn't absolutely explicitly stated (as you are requiring here), there was a huge debate that spanned years and multiple threads.

We finally got PDT input that unequivocally said drawing that inference was correct: flanking requires melee.

Similarly, the connection between A1 and B1, to use your terms, is not specious. There is a foundation for it. Ergo, it is not "made up".


I'm not sure if I understand the question exactly but here goes:

1) Multiweapon fighting doesn't actually have anything it expands to. There is no equivalent to ITWF or GTWF.

However, the rules say that the feat replaces TWF for creatures with more than 2 arms.

2) Improved Two Weapon fighting and Greater Two Weapon fighting specify exactly what they do with no ambiguity. ITWF adds an additional attack to an off-hand at a -5 penalty. GTWF add another attack with an off-hand at a -10 penalty. Specifically they cannot grant more than one attack each.

3) A character that has Multiweapon Fighting, ITWF, and GTWF will have:

1 primary attack and 3 off-hand attacks as a base.
Multiweapon fighting only reduces the penalties.
With Improved Two Weapon Fighting you will have 2 primary hand attacks from BAB 6, and 4 off-hand attacks (with one being at -5 penalty).
With Greater Two Weapon Fighting you will have 3 primary hand attacks from BAB 11, and 5 off-hand attacks (with one a -5 penalty and another at -10 penalty).

4) Allowing a character to get an extra attack with each arm for ITWF and GTWF would be ridiculous. They would end up with 13 attacks on a full BAB character. Completely ridiculous.

Liberty's Edge

Claxon, I agree that ITWF and GTWF granting an extra attack per off-hand would be extreme... but there is also another possibility.

They might not be compatible at all.

That is, someone with four arms and MWF, TWF (if needed), ITWF, and GTWF might be able to make EITHER one primary hand attack (plus iteratives for high BAB) and three off-hand attacks (no iteratives) using MWF OR one primary hand attack (plus iteratives for high BAB) and up to three iterative off-hand attacks.

Basically, it is possible that using the MWF feat precludes using the TWF feats and vice versa. You can make a full attack benefiting from one or the other, not both.

That said, the way you present it seems the most likely answer to me.


It is possible that multiweapon fighting and two weapon fighting are mutually exclusive, but it unclear if they should or shouldn't be.

As a GM, I simply wouldn't allow a player to play a kasatha or other four armed race to avoid such problems.

Liberty's Edge

fretgod99 wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Inference wrote:
a conclusion or opinion that is formed because of known facts or evidence
Calling drawing an inference "making something up" is as baffling as it is woefully inaccurate. Drawing inferences is a necessary component of logical analysis.
When you speak of a rule set where the rules say what is allowed, inferring that if rule A allow A1 it allow B1 too is "making something up".

Only if there is no logical basis for making the connection between A1 and B1. That's not the case here, so again, I'm not making anything up.

This is not dissimilar to the Sneak Attack from Range debate that was only just recently finally settled. The only reason there was a debate was because it required some level of inference (not much, but some) to demonstrate that flanking does in fact require the attack to be a melee attack. But because it wasn't absolutely explicitly stated (as you are requiring here), there was a huge debate that spanned years and multiple threads.

We finally got PDT input that unequivocally said drawing that inference was correct: flanking requires melee.

Similarly, the connection between A1 and B1, to use your terms, is not specious. There is a foundation for it. Ergo, it is not "made up".

Actually it is exactly the same kind of error.

"The rules don't allow X but don't explicitly disallow it, so it is allowed." in a permissive rule set is always very doubtful.

Your reasoning. "the rules don't say that you require a explicit ability to make more than 1 off hand attack if you have more than 2 arms, so it is allowed."
Flanking from range: "the rules don't explicitly say that you need to be in meele range to flank, so it is allowed."

And honestly, how someone can get that idea:

PRD wrote:


Flanking

When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.


Diego Rossi wrote:

Actually it is exactly the same kind of error.

"The rules don't allow X but don't explicitly disallow it, so it is allowed." in a permissive rule set is always very doubtful.

Your reasoning. "the rules don't say that you require a explicit ability to make more than 1 off hand attack if you have more than 2 arms, so it is allowed."
Flanking from range: "the rules don't explicitly say that you need to be in meele range to flank, so it is allowed."

And honestly, how someone can get that idea:

PRD wrote:


Flanking

When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.

If you haven't been privy to the ranged flank threads, you won't get the reference. People predicated their (wrong) position on the idea that the flanking bonus, which is mentioned in the section you quoted, requires a melee attack, but the next paragraph is what specifically talks about flanking, and makes no mention of making a melee attack.

I'm not here to rehash those arguments. But the bottom line is the rules on the page did have some semblance of ambiguity. Was there supposed to be a distinction between getting a flanking bonus on one's attack and being in position to flank? Going by CRB language alone, there was at least a superficial argument for it. The Gang-Up FAQ language should have closed the door, but it wasn't worded explicitly enough for the like of some (I find this aspect fairly analogous...), so the debate raged on. It wasn't until last week when the PDT explicitly said that flanking requires melee attacks that the debate was settled, despite all the relatively clear evidence available. The evidence was there, but required inference. If there was no inference required, it would be explicit and not subject to interpretation.

More to the point, that is absolutely not my reasoning. My reasoning has nothing to do with the rules not explicitly saying you can't do X, therefore you must be able to. If that is what you have gotten from my posts, you haven't read them particularly closely. This surprises me because you are typically a very careful poster whose opinion in rules discussion I often find quite valuable.

My position is that the language used explicitly in the rules (in places like the MWF feat) implies clear intent by the developers that if you have more than the standard 2 arms presumed for PC races, you are allowed to make additional attacks. MWF explicitly calls out multiple off-hand attacks. That only makes sense if a person meeting the prerequisites for that feat has the ability to utilize said attacks. This has nothing to do with "Well, it doesn't say you can't...". The has everything to do with "Even though they don't explicitly say you can, the language used doesn't really make much sense unless you can." The gulf between those two positions is vast.

I am making nothing up. That an inference is used does not invalidate the logic behind the position. Inference =/= made up.

Requiring no inferences means the Fighter Bonus Feat language allows retraining of bonus feats granting from any class, not just those taking via the Fighter Bonus Feat ability. This position is obviously preposterous, if you're allowed to use a modicum of inference. Yet we still have a FAQ on the issue because some people are too strictly beholden to explicit language. This, I suggest, is one of those cases (though not nearly as egregious as the Fighter Bonus Feat situation - that was just silly).

Liberty's Edge

fretgod99 wrote:
My position is that the language used explicitly in the rules (in places like the MWF feat) implies clear intent by the developers that if you have more than the standard 2 arms presumed for PC races, you are allowed to make additional attacks. MWF explicitly calls out multiple off-hand attacks. That only makes sense if a person meeting the prerequisites for that feat has the ability to utilize said attacks. This has nothing to do with "Well, it doesn't say you can't...". The has everything to do with "Even though they don't explicitly say you can, the language used doesn't really make much sense unless you can." The gulf between those two positions is vast.

The big difference in our positions is that you assume that getting more arms grant more weapon attacks, while I assume that getting more weapon attacks in the creature statblock is needed to get more weapon attacks.

I have cited several monsters with multiple arms and less attacks than arms, the reply (no by you, I speaking of several replies) was "but the monster description say that he don't use its extra arms to attack".
So the descriptive text is used as an hard rule.
But at the same time a statblock that say that x creature don't get as many attacks as arms isn't an hard rule.
I find difficult to reconcile those two positions when they are presented by people supporting the same position.

I would prefer a more clear rule now that it is possible to get player characters with more than two arms? Yes.

But until we get it I think that the more conservative hypothesis is the one we should follow. Not the more lenient.

Liberty's Edge

Diego Rossi wrote:
I have cited several monsters with multiple arms and less attacks than arms

Unfortunately, that's evidence of nothing.

Unless you would also argue that the many stat blocks showing two armed creatures wielding a single one-handed weapon suggest that fighting with a weapon in each hand is impossible.

Indeed, the fact that there are examples of creatures like Kasatha, Xill, and Sahuagin (4 armed variety) both with and without 3+ weapon attacks, yet no special 'extra attacks' ability on any of them, is just more evidence for 'available attacks = available arms'.

Liberty's Edge

CBDunkerson wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
I have cited several monsters with multiple arms and less attacks than arms

Unfortunately, that's evidence of nothing.

Unless you would also argue that the many stat blocks showing two armed creatures wielding a single one-handed weapon suggest that fighting with a weapon in each hand is impossible.

Indeed, the fact that there are examples of creatures like Kasatha, Xill, and Sahuagin (4 armed variety) both with and without 3+ weapon attacks, yet no special 'extra attacks' ability on any of them, is just more evidence for 'available attacks = available arms'.

It is circumstantial evidence that more than 4 arms isn't automatically more that i off hand attack.

Nothing more than circumstantial evidence, but it has the same value that citing some monster that get multiple armed attacks as supposed "proof" that multiple arms automatically mean multiple off hand armed attacks.

In a permissive system you need to find evidence for your interpretation as it is the on that give and extended interpretation of the rule and examples that contradict it show that it is not something automatic.

BTW, you are using a logical fallacy in your example.
In Pathfinder, a permissive system, there is a specific rule that allow two weapon fighting. So your attempt at disproving my position is based on a false equivalency.

Plus:

D20PFSRD wrote:


Xill Matriarch CR 9

...

OFFENSE

Speed 40 ft.
Melee mwk short sword +19/+14/+9 (1d6+5/19–20), mwk short sword +19/+14 (1d6+5/19–20), claw +18 (1d4+5 plus grab), bite +13 (1d3+2 plus paralysis) or 4 claws +18 (1d4+5 plus grab), bite +18 (1d3+5 plus paralysis)
Ranged mwk composite longbow +18/+13/+8 (1d8+5/×3), mwk composite longbow +18/+13 (1d8+5/×3)

2 melee weapons or 2 ranged weapons

D20PFSRD wrote:


Kasatha CR 1/2

..

OFFENSE

Speed 30 ft.
Melee sai +3 (1d4+1) or unarmed strike +3 (1d6+1) or flurry of blows +2/+2 (1d6+1)
Special Attacks flurry of blows, stunning fist (1/day, DC 13)

1 melee weapon. The ranger archetype get 2 ranged weapons.

PRD wrote:


Sahuagin Champion CR 10

Four-armed sahuagin barbarian 7

...

Offense

Speed 40 ft., swim 60 ft.

Melee +1 trident +18/+13 (1d8+13), claw +15 (1d4+4), mwk spiked heavy steel shield +18 (1d6+8), bite +15 (1d4+4)

2 weapon attacks, trident and shield, 1 claw, 1 bite.

So exactly where are your examples? Can you link them?

What we get from those example is that several creatures can use 2 two handed weapons it they get more than 4 arms. Not 3 off hand attacks.


You posted monster stat blocks last page. I responded here, showing why your concerns about those particular monsters were unfounded. Again, these entries are of no concern.

Xill was discussed in my other post, as was the Kasatha (it doesn't have four weapons in the stat block, so why would they have an entry for four attacks? Plus, it's a Monk and Flurry explicitly works like TWF).

Regarding this more specific Sahuagin, there are the equivalent of three manufactured weapon attacks; the creature is two-handing the trident. You can tell by the damage bonus: +8 from 26 STR, +4 for second hand, +1 from magic weapon. Notice the shield is +8, just from STR and both natural attacks are +4 (assumed to be combined with manufactured attacks and thus secondary).

So the attack sequence is two-handing the Trident, Shield bash, Claw, Bite. Equivalently three weapon attacks, then a claw attack with the remaining hand.

It appears you have provided the proof via stat block you were requesting.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:
In a permissive system you need to find evidence for your interpretation as it is the on that give and extended interpretation of the rule and examples that contradict it show that it is not something automatic.

Setting aside the fact that you have simply made up this "permissive" 'rule' of how Pathfinder should be interpreted... your examples don't "contradict" the 'up to one weapon attack per arm' rule.

Again, they are not ANY kind of evidence unless you want to argue that every stat block showing a human/elf/dwarf/orc/ogre/goblin/500 other two-armed creatures attacking with a single weapon is "evidence" that they CANNOT attack with two weapons. Your 'logic' here is exactly the same as that claim... and wrong for exactly the same reasons.

Quote:
In Pathfinder, a permissive system, there is a specific rule that allow two weapon fighting. So your attempt at disproving my position is based on a false equivalency.

Again, I'd love to see where it is written that Pathfinder is "a permissive system" rather than that being something you just made up (and contradictory to GM interpretation and fiat being very much part of the system), but even if it were true... there ARE specific rules allowing multiweapon fighting. No false equivalency. Just equivalency.

Finally, you don't seem to have understood the bit I was saying about there being examples of the same creature types both with and without 3+ attacks, so...

Base Xill: short swords +13/+13/+8 (1d6+3/19–20), claw +13 (1d4+3 plus grab), bite +7 (1d3+1 plus paralysis)
Zagmaander, Xill in AP 86: longsword +12/+7 (1d8+3/19-20), longsword +12 (1d8+3/19-20), laser torch +12 touch (1d10 fire+1/x3), bite +12 (1d3+3 plus paralysis), claw +12 (1d4+3 plus grab)
How does Zagmaander get three weapon attacks if Xill only have two? Why is there no ability listed granting her this special power?

Base Kasatha: sai +3 (1d4+1)
Intellect Devourer controlled Kasatha in AP 88: mwk short sword +8 (1d6+3/19-20), 2 mwk short swords +8 (1d6+1/19-20)
How can the AP Kasatha get three weapon attacks if Kasatha only have ONE? Why is there no ability listed in their AP stat block granting this special power?

Base Calikang: +1 longsword +18/+13/+8 (2d6+8/17–20), +1 longsword +18 (2d6+8/17–20), 4 slams +16 (1d6+3)
Grevori, Calikang in Wardens of the Reborn Forge: +1 warhammer +24/+19/+14/+9 (2d6+10/19-20/x3), +1 warhammer +24 (2d6+10/19-20/x3), 2 injection syringes +23 (1d8+10/19-20 plus disease), 2 slams +21 (1d6+4)
How does Grevori get four weapon attacks if Calikangs only have two? Why is there no ability listed granting him this special power?

Remember... 'Pathfinder is a permissive system'. There can't be some ability unless there is a rule explicitly stating it. The usual sophistry for ignoring the evidence of various 3+ armed monsters with 3+ weapon attacks (e.g. Marilith) is to claim that their bestiary entry itself represents a special rule giving them those extra attacks (though still contrary to the supposed 'permissive' rule... since there is nothing explicitly stating it is doing so). However, here we have multiple examples where even that nonsense goes out the window... the bestiary stat block DOESN'T give 3+ weapon attacks, but then individual examples of the same 3+ armed creatures DO have 3+ weapon attacks.

Permissive system!
There MUST be something in their stat blocks which adds extra weapon attacks!

Yet... nothing is listed.

Error! Does not compute!

Of course, there always HAS been a rule stating that 3+ arms allows 3+ weapon attacks;

"Multiweapon Fighting
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.)"

There it is. The explicit 'permissive system' rule allowing Mariliths and others to attack with each of their arms despite nothing in their stat block saying so. Ditto allowing individual Xill, Calikang and others to attack with more than two arms despite their race bestiary entries AND individual stat blocks not saying so.

They are ALL covered because the MWF feat (not to mention the Multiarmed option in the ARG and the Kasatha Multi-Armed ability) states that each extra arm is an extra "off hand"... which term is used throughout the rules to speak of ATTACKS made with an off hand. There is no other game meaning of "off hand" which could be being referenced here. If you have an extra "off hand" then you can make another off hand attack. That's what the term means.


Which is what I have been trying to not so eloquently say, even though creatures from the Bestiaries aren't held to the exact same set of rules as a PC they always show through abilities when they break those rules.


In addition to ^, neither the Sahuagin Champion nor Kasatha in Bestiary have the MWF feat. So it should be completely unsurprising that their entries are not statted out to include multiweapon fighting options. MWF without the feat is an objectively terrible option. The attacks at best are made with -4/-8/-8/-8 penalties. Why would they even consider showing this option when it's unquestionably worse than anything else they can already do?

As CB mentioned, this is like claiming that the standard Goblin or Cloud Giant cannot TWF because their stat entry doesn't show options for it.

So it is unsurprising that none of these monsters' entries have lines for MWF when none of them are built to be competent at it, even though they have the capacity. I mentioned this before, but thought it needed repeating since the monster was brought back up again.

Liberty's Edge

fretgod99 wrote:

You posted monster stat blocks last page. I responded here, showing why your concerns about those particular monsters were unfounded. Again, these entries are of no concern.

Xill was discussed in my other post, as was the Kasatha (it doesn't have four weapons in the stat block, so why would they have an entry for four attacks? Plus, it's a Monk and Flurry explicitly works like TWF).

Regarding this more specific Sahuagin, there are the equivalent of three manufactured weapon attacks; the creature is two-handing the trident. You can tell by the damage bonus: +8 from 26 STR, +4 for second hand, +1 from magic weapon. Notice the shield is +8, just from STR and both natural attacks are +4 (assumed to be combined with manufactured attacks and thus secondary).

So the attack sequence is two-handing the Trident, Shield bash, Claw, Bite. Equivalently three weapon attacks, then a claw attack with the remaining hand.

It appears you have provided the proof via stat block you were requesting.

PRD wrote:
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. Strangely for a race native to the realm of shadows, the d'ziriaks have a colorful collection of runic shapes, almost like glowing tattoos, upon their chitinous flesh. These runes help to denote what role in d'ziriak society each of these beings serves.

As already said, I found interesting how you consider descriptive text a relevant rule, a statblock as a not relevant rule.

What make one superior to the other?

You other comments hase similar problems:

fretgod99 wrote:


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?

A non reply. I agree that we don't know why the xill has only 2 weapon attacks. But you take "we don't know" ad add "so it mean that he can make 4 weapon attacks".

fretgod99 wrote:


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.

"How it works with weapon attacks should be patent" ..... Why?

Again we don't know, how you get to the conclusion that it is "patent"?

fretgod99 wrote:


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.

Again taking something that is not defined in any way for granted.


Descriptive text > stat blocks when it comes to rules priority. If rules text and charts conflict, the rules text trumps. I've seen developer commentary on it. I'd have to go find it, which might take a bit.

It works the same with stat blocks. We're explicitly told that D'ziriak's extra two hands cannot be used for combat. Why are you in any way surprised and using this as evidence when they only have two available attacks listed in their stat block?

I didn't add that we know Xills can attack with four weapons. I'm countering your argument which is basically, "Xills have four arms, so why doesn't their stat block list four weapon attacks". That their stat blocks don't include four attacks is irrelevant to whether they can make for attacks. With Xills in particular we know it is particularly relevant because they have a specific ability which allows the combination of manufactured and natural attacks without penalty to natural attacks. So legitimately, why would they need to make four weapon attacks in their stat block? They can already combine their claw attacks without a problem (note, this is the explicit rule-breaking being called out in a stat block that others in this thread have referred to). Them not having four weapon attacks statted out is not in any conceivable way evidence that they cannot make four weapon attacks. At best, it is no evidence either way.

The Sahuagin Champion's case should be patent because it has abilities which clearly explain how it works. The claws are specifically called out in the Four-Armed entry because it isn't guaranteed that getting two more arms will give you claws attached to them. However, the Four-Armed entry states that such creatures also get the Multiweapon Mastery special attack, which means they can attack with multiple weapons without taking penalties to their attack rolls. It is specifically calling out "Multiple" weapons. Obviously, two constitutes multiple. However, we already have relevant abilities for two-weapon cases: two-weapon fighting, Superior Two-Weapon Fighting, etc. This is obviously designed to mirror the Multiweapon Fighting case, meaning 3+ weapons. If they wanted to clarify that they didn't take attack penalties when two-weapon fighting and TWF alone, why not give them Superior Two-Weapon Fighting, like the Ettin? Clearly, Multiweapon Fighting is intended to apply to cases with 3+ weapons. They are clearly intended to be allowed to make attacks with 3+ weapons, otherwise there is absolutely no reason to give them an ability called Multiweapon Mastery.

And note, Multiweapon Master does not give extra attacks; much like the TWF feat and the MWF feat, all it does is reduce penalties associated with a creature that can already make said attacks.

So again, this is not explicit, but it is extremely logical (and I'd go so far as to say obvious - hence my use of patent above) how this works.

Regarding the Kasatha, I'm not sure what you're saying I'm taking for granted. Even if you assume that Kasatha's can make four weapon attacks, that doesn't mean that this creature would be statted out showing them - that was my point. So the lack of four weapon attack entries in the stat block is of no moment.

Liberty's Edge

fretgod99 wrote:

Descriptive text > stat blocks when it comes to rules priority. If rules text and charts conflict, the rules text trumps. I've seen developer commentary on it. I'd have to go find it, which might take a bit.

It works the same with stat blocks. We're explicitly told that D'ziriak's extra two hands cannot be used for combat. Why are you in any way surprised and using this as evidence when they only have two available attacks listed in their stat block?

I didn't add that we know Xills can attack with four weapons. I'm countering your argument which is basically, "Xills have four arms, so why doesn't their stat block list four weapon attacks". That their stat blocks don't include four attacks is irrelevant to whether they can make for attacks. With Xills in particular we know it is particularly relevant because they have a specific ability which allows the combination of manufactured and natural attacks without penalty to natural attacks. So legitimately, why would they need to make four weapon attacks in their stat block? They can already combine their claw attacks without a problem (note, this is the explicit rule-breaking being called out in a stat block that others in this thread have referred to). Them not having four weapon attacks statted out is not in any conceivable way evidence that they cannot make four weapon attacks. At best, it is no evidence either way.

The Sahuagin Champion's case should be patent because it has abilities which clearly explain how it works. The claws are specifically called out in the Four-Armed entry because it isn't guaranteed that getting two more arms will give you claws attached to them. However, the Four-Armed entry states that such creatures also get the Multiweapon Mastery special attack, which means they can attack with multiple weapons without taking penalties to their attack rolls. It is specifically calling out "Multiple" weapons. Obviously, two constitutes multiple. However, we already have relevant abilities for two-weapon cases: two-weapon fighting, Superior Two-Weapon Fighting, etc. This is obviously designed to mirror the Multiweapon Fighting case, meaning 3+ weapons. If they wanted to clarify that they didn't take attack penalties when two-weapon fighting and TWF alone, why not give them Superior Two-Weapon Fighting, like the Ettin? Clearly, Multiweapon Fighting is intended to apply to cases with 3+ weapons. They are clearly intended to be allowed to make attacks with 3+ weapons, otherwise there is absolutely no reason to give them an ability called Multiweapon Mastery.

And note, Multiweapon Master does not give extra attacks; much like the TWF feat and the MWF feat, all it does is reduce penalties associated with a creature that can already make said attacks.

So again, this is not explicit, but it is extremely logical (and I'd go so far as to say obvious - hence my use of patent above) how this works.

Regarding the Kasatha, I'm not sure what you're saying I'm taking for granted. Even if you assume that Kasatha's can make four weapon attacks, that doesn't mean that this creature would be statted out showing them - that was my point. So the lack of four weapon attack entries in the stat block is of no moment.

I am surprised when you find a different creature with only 2 weapon attacks listed in their statblock and you say "it has 4 arms, it is in its description, so it get 4 weapon attacks".

With the D'ziriak's you use the description to say that it is an exception an justify the statblock, with the other creatures you use the description to give them more attacks that those described in their statblock.

Essentially: you aren't coherent.

Yes, multiweapon fighting reduces the penalty for all arms wielding weapons.
Yes, some creature can use more than 2 weapons at the same time.
No, it is not automatic that having more arms give you more weapon attacks.

You guys are inferring the last part, but nothing say that.

Without a FAQ or even better an errata you can't change my opinion and I don't think I can change yours, so continuing this discussion is pointless.


Diego Rossi wrote:


In a permissive system you need to find evidence for your interpretation as it is the on that give and extended interpretation of the rule and examples that contradict it show that it is not something automatic.

Not arguing one way or another on the topic, but I don't think this means what you think it means....

Permissive means "allowing or characterized by great or excessive freedom of behavior."

Example, in legal matters, permissive counterclaims are all counterclaims not specifically barred by law.

You seem to be using it exactly opposite of its definition.


Samasboy1 wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:


In a permissive system you need to find evidence for your interpretation as it is the on that give and extended interpretation of the rule and examples that contradict it show that it is not something automatic.

Not arguing one way or another on the topic, but I don't think this means what you think it means....

Permissive means "allowing or characterized by great or excessive freedom of behavior."

Example, in legal matters, permissive counterclaims are all counterclaims not specifically barred by law.

You seem to be using it exactly opposite of its definition.

A permissive ruleset, on the other hand, requires a rule (permission) in order to do something.

Liberty's Edge

Samasboy1 wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:


In a permissive system you need to find evidence for your interpretation as it is the on that give and extended interpretation of the rule and examples that contradict it show that it is not something automatic.

Not arguing one way or another on the topic, but I don't think this means what you think it means....

Permissive means "allowing or characterized by great or excessive freedom of behavior."

Example, in legal matters, permissive counterclaims are all counterclaims not specifically barred by law.

You seem to be using it exactly opposite of its definition.

Quote:


[per-mis-iv]

adjective
1.
habitually or characteristically accepting or tolerant of something, as social behavior or linguistic usage, that others might disapprove or forbid.
2.
granting or denoting permission:
a permissive nod.

It is the second use. I am not the first using it that way about the Pathfinder rules.


Diego Rossi wrote:

I am surprised when you find a different creature with only 2 weapon attacks listed in their statblock and you say "it has 4 arms, it is in its description, so it get 4 weapon attacks".

With the D'ziriak's you use the description to say that it is an exception an justify the statblock, with the other creatures you use the description to give them more attacks that those described in their statblock.
Essentially: you aren't coherent.

Yes, multiweapon fighting reduces the penalty for all arms wielding weapons.
Yes, some creature can use more than 2 weapons at the same time.
No, it is not automatic that having more arms give you more weapon attacks.

You guys are inferring the last part, but nothing say that.

Without a FAQ or even better an errata you can't change my opinion and I don't think I can change yours, so continuing this discussion is pointless.

How am I being incoherent? I'm not doing anything inconsistently. The D'ziriak's entry literally tells us that it can only use two limbs to attack. That's why the stat block only has two attacks.

The other situations are completely different. There's no rule saying these creatures are limited to the attacks that appear in their stat blocks, but you're implying that if it doesn't appear in their stat blocks, they cannot do it. Please show me the rule for that. You are inferring that part but you haven't shown support for that. To use your own description of this sort of thing, you are making that restriction up.

Your proof is premised upon the idea that if these creatures could do X, it must appear in the stat block. Since it doesn't you reason they can't. I've simply demonstrated why your logic is in error. And in fact, one example you provided explicitly shows the creature using three hands of effort to wield manufactured weapons (the Sahuagin Champion).

If you admit that some creatures can make more than two weapon attacks, where is the rule that allows only them to do so?


Diego Rossi wrote:

With the D'ziriak's you use the description to say that it is an exception an justify the statblock, with the other creatures you use the description to give them more attacks that those described in their statblock.

Essentially: you aren't coherent.

How is using the description for A to inform his understanding of how A works, while also using the description of B to inform his understanding of how B works incoherent..?

Seems like a consistent position to me.

Calth wrote:

A permissive ruleset, on the other hand, requires a rule (permission) in order to do something.

No, a "permissive ruleset" is a ruleset that is permissive. Thus permission for a particular thing would be assumed, unless specifically forbidden.

Diego Rossi wrote:


I am not the first using it that way about the Pathfinder rules.

That doesn't mean any of you are using it correctly. Yes, permissive denotes granting of permission, and so a permissive ruleset would be one in which permission is granted generally and exceptions would need to be spelled out. The opposite of what you hold to be true.

Laws are just the ruleset we live by in the RL. By your definition, totalitarian countries like North Korea have the most permissive laws in the world, which is clearly the incorrect usage of the term.

The term you should be using is restictive, "imposing restrictions or limitations on someone's activities or freedom." Thus, the general position of the ruleset would be you cannot do anything, unless you can find a specific permission to do so.


Samasboy1 wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

With the D'ziriak's you use the description to say that it is an exception an justify the statblock, with the other creatures you use the description to give them more attacks that those described in their statblock.

Essentially: you aren't coherent.

How is using the description for A to inform his understanding of how A works, while also using the description of B to inform his understanding of how B works incoherent..?

Seems like a consistent position to me.

Calth wrote:

A permissive ruleset, on the other hand, requires a rule (permission) in order to do something.

No, a "permissive ruleset" is a ruleset that is permissive. Thus permission for a particular thing would be assumed, unless specifically forbidden.

Diego Rossi wrote:


I am not the first using it that way about the Pathfinder rules.

That doesn't mean any of you are using it correctly. Yes, permissive denotes granting of permission, and so a permissive ruleset would be one in which permission is granted generally and exceptions would need to be spelled out. The opposite of what you hold to be true.

Laws are just the ruleset we live by in the RL. By your definition, totalitarian countries like North Korea have the most permissive laws in the world, which is clearly the incorrect usage of the term.

The term you should be using is restictive, "imposing restrictions or limitations on someone's activities or freedom." Thus, the general position of the ruleset would be you cannot do anything, unless you can find a specific permission to do so.

You miss using the terms doesn't change them. A permissive ruleset tells you what you can do. A restrictive ruleset tells you what you cannot do. Permissive and restrictive do not refer to the scope of the rules, what you are thinking of with permissive and restrictive, but the structure of the ruleset.

Your references to laws are incorrect as well. Laws are a restrictive ruleset, because, guess what, they give restrictions on what people can do.

I mean, look at your own last sentence. What word do you see? Permission. That's where the usage come from.


No, a permissive ruleset has a default assumption that you can do something (everyone has permission) and calls out exceptions (limitations).

A restrictive ruleset has a default assumption that you cannot do something (no one has permission) and calls out exceptions (allowances).

Permissive parenting is a parenting model in which children's actions are unburdened by rules or expectations.

The U.S. is criticized for permissive gun laws, as the legal assumption that everyone except named categories of people can legally purchase guns.

Permissive use in car insurance holds that any user of the vehicle is covered, without needing to be specifically listed in the policy.

All laws/rules deal with permission and restriction. The base assumption, that all have permission or none have permission is what determines if it is permissive or restrictive.

[On Topic]
For me...

Quote:
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.

..is enough to justify the ability to make attacks with the third and fourth melee weapons.

Compare...

Two Weapon Fighting wrote:

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.

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.

The Normal section of TWF illustrates that "wield a weapon" refers to making attacks with it.

The Multiarmed ability includes the granted ability to "wield multiple weapons." Thus, it grants the ability to attack with a third and/or forth weapon held in your hands.

Now, I still grant this isn't a perfectly explicit rule. But I have no problem with my reading of it.


Samasboy1 wrote:

No, a permissive ruleset has a default assumption that you can do something (everyone has permission) and calls out exceptions (limitations).

A restrictive ruleset has a default assumption that you cannot do something (no one has permission) and calls out exceptions (allowances).

Permissive parenting is a parenting model in which children's actions are unburdened by rules or expectations.

The U.S. is criticized for permissive gun laws, as the legal assumption that everyone except named categories of people can legally purchase guns.

Permissive use in car insurance holds that any user of the vehicle is covered, without needing to be specifically listed in the policy.

All laws/rules deal with permission and restriction. The base assumption, that all have permission or none have permission is what determines if it is permissive or restrictive.

[On Topic]
For me...

Quote:
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.

..is enough to justify the ability to make attacks with the third and fourth melee weapons.

Compare...

Two Weapon Fighting wrote:

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.

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

...

Wielding a weapon in no way confers the ability to attack with it. A normal humanoid can wield 7 weapons or more simultaneously. Doesn't change the fact that they can only attack with two.

And you are simply wrong when talking about permissive/restrictive rules in reference to games. It has been used the way Diego and I described for years. Don't care if you don't like it, it is what it is.


In Pathfinder, "wielding" a weapon generally means attacking with it. Or, at the very least, being able to attack with it.


fretgod99 wrote:
In Pathfinder, "wielding" a weapon generally means attacking with it. Or, at the very least, being able to attack with it.

And humans can wield 7 plus weapons simultaneously and even attack with all 7 in a round with 16 bab and gtwf. Or you can wield 7 and attack with one. A level 1 character with 7 weapons wielded can still only attack with those attacks granted by bab, the twf rule and whatever other class abilities or feats allow. But there is no relationship between number of simultaneously wielded weapons and number of attacks beyond needing at least two to TWF (well 2 different weapons. Or unarmed strikes you don't actual have to simultaneously wield 2).

Liberty's Edge

"Wielding" is one of those wonderful terms used in several different ways in the rules. There isn't an official definition of it. When you speak of weapons SKR opinion and the defending weapon FAQ say that it mean actively use. Other abilities and writers use it for held in hand/have it ready for use.
As Calth say, you can wield several different weapons and you can possibly use all of them if you have enough attacks or for AoO if you have combat reflex and enough dexterity.

Comparing:
"You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the secondary weapon."
to
"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."

The missing text allowing you to make extra attacks can mean:
1) that the writer was taking that for granted and wanted to keep the word count down;
2) that the writer didn't wanted to give extra attacks with that ability, but only the ability to held multiple different weapons in the different hands.
That can be a interesting ability, as an example, for a creature using a reach weapon in 2 hands and 2 different non reach weapons in the second set of hands.

Without Dev input we can guess what is the intent, but the multiple uses of wield in the rules don't give us a definitive answer.

Liberty's Edge

So... state of the 'debate':

Position A: Some people cite three rules (MWF feat, Multi-Armed trait from ARG, and Kasatha Bestiary entry Multi-Armed ability) which they believe to each be clearly saying that creatures get one off-hand weapon attack for each additional arm beyond the first (which itself provides a primary hand weapon attack).

Position B: Other people have said that they interpret each of these differently (e.g. that MWF says attacks can be made with all of a creature's off-hands doesn't mean they can all me made at the same time, that the ARG entry says that weapons can be wielded in all of the off-hands doesn't mean those wielded weapons can be attacked with, that a Kasatha can use any of its hands for any purpose that requires a free hand doesn't mean that it can do so with all of its hands at once, et cetera).

People can and will interpret words in radically different ways. Impossible to avoid. However, we can also consider the weight of the evidence. And in that regard there is complete consistency;

Fact 1: Every single stat block representing a creature holding weapons in three or more arms allows them to attack with each of those weapons in the same round... just as specified by Position A.
Fact 2: None of these stat blocks contains an ability (other than the Kasatha Multi-Armed ability as interpreted by Position A) which would allow these multi-arm attacks.

Ergo, either;
1: the developers and editors of the Bestiaries, APs, modules, and other Paizo books have mistakenly applied Position A in every single case where this issue has occurred
2: or the developers and editors have made up a 'new' (nowhere stated) rule, coincidentally matching Position A each and every time, for each individual stat block of this type
3: or Position B is wrong.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter which of these 'possibilities' is correct. Position A is the de facto rule. Either because that was the intent all along, because everyone at Paizo who has ever made a stat block of this kind 'erroneously' believes it to be the case, or because every time the issue comes up the people at Paizo invent a 'new' rule which always matches Position A... and then forget to write it anywhere.


Diego Rossi wrote:


Plus:
D20PFSRD wrote:


Xill Matriarch CR 9

...

OFFENSE

Speed 40 ft.
Melee mwk short sword +19/+14/+9 (1d6+5/19–20), mwk short sword +19/+14 (1d6+5/19–20), claw +18 (1d4+5 plus grab), bite +13 (1d3+2 plus paralysis) or 4 claws +18 (1d4+5 plus grab), bite +18 (1d3+5 plus paralysis)
Ranged mwk composite longbow +18/+13/+8 (1d8+5/×3), mwk composite longbow +18/+13 (1d8+5/×3)

2 melee weapons or 2 ranged weapons

..

Xill Matriach is using twfing (multi to two two bows).

How do we know? He makes 2 off hand bow attacks and 3 full hand ones.

Each bow takes 2 hands worth of effort. We learned this during the unwritten rules debate by the designers. Go look it up, I'll wait, back?

So, Xill can/are using MWFing with ranged weapons.


CBDunkerson wrote:

So... state of the 'debate':

Position A: Some people cite three rules (MWF feat, Multi-Armed trait from ARG, and Kasatha Bestiary entry Multi-Armed ability) which they believe to each be clearly saying that creatures get one off-hand weapon attack for each additional arm beyond the first (which itself provides a primary hand weapon attack).

Position B: Other people have said that they interpret each of these differently (e.g. that MWF says attacks can be made with all of a creature's off-hands doesn't mean they can all me made at the same time, that the ARG entry says that weapons can be wielded in all of the off-hands doesn't mean those wielded weapons can be attacked with, that a Kasatha can use any of its hands for any purpose that requires a free hand doesn't mean that it can do so with all of its hands at once, et cetera).

People can and will interpret words in radically different ways. Impossible to avoid. However, we can also consider the weight of the evidence. And in that regard there is complete consistency;

Fact 1: Every single stat block representing a creature holding weapons in three or more arms allows them to attack with each of those weapons in the same round... just as specified by Position A.
Fact 2: None of these stat blocks contains an ability (other than the Kasatha Multi-Armed ability as interpreted by Position A) which would allow these multi-arm attacks.

Ergo, either;
1: the developers and editors of the Bestiaries, APs, modules, and other Paizo books have mistakenly applied Position A in every single case where this issue has occurred
2: or the developers and editors have made up a 'new' (nowhere stated) rule, coincidentally matching Position A each and every time, for each individual stat block of this type
3: or Position B is wrong.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter which of these 'possibilities' is correct. Position A is the de facto rule. Either because that was the intent all along, because everyone at Paizo who has ever made a stat block of this kind...

Way to totally misrepresent the thread.

Liberty's Edge

Calth wrote:
Way to totally misrepresent the thread.

Seriously?

The only representation I made, about the content of the thread, was that there are differing interpretations of various text about creatures with multiple arms. If that is a 'total misrepresentation' then you would be saying that you AGREE with my interpretation that each arm grants an extra weapon attack.

Somehow, I doubt that's what you meant. It's just what you actually said.


Calth wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
In Pathfinder, "wielding" a weapon generally means attacking with it. Or, at the very least, being able to attack with it.

And humans can wield 7 plus weapons simultaneously and even attack with all 7 in a round with 16 bab and gtwf. Or you can wield 7 and attack with one. A level 1 character with 7 weapons wielded can still only attack with those attacks granted by bab, the twf rule and whatever other class abilities or feats allow. But there is no relationship between number of simultaneously wielded weapons and number of attacks beyond needing at least two to TWF (well 2 different weapons. Or unarmed strikes you don't actual have to simultaneously wield 2).

Quickdrawing and dropping isn't simultaneously wielding. Regardless, I was responding to your statement "Wielding a weapon in no way confers the ability to attack with it."

Whether wielding is defined as actively attacking with a weapon or the weapon is available to be attacked with, wielding, by definition, necessitates your ability to attack with said weapon. Otherwise, you are not wielding it.


I recognize this will be convincing to nobody, but I do believe it can sometimes be helpful to recognize legacy.

MWF is a specific holdover from 3.5, worded the same way. 3.5 also had Improved MWF (as well as Greater and Perfect, just like TWF), which made it abundantly clear that you get an attack with each extra arm.

Quote:
Normal: With only Multiweapon Fighting, a creater can only get a single attack with each extra weapon.

so what the original intent was is unquestionable. Do with that what you will. *shrug*

Liberty's Edge

fretgod99 wrote:

I recognize this will be convincing to nobody, but I do believe it can sometimes be helpful to recognize legacy.

MWF is a specific holdover from 3.5, worded the same way. 3.5 also had Improved MWF (as well as Greater and Perfect, just like TWF), which made it abundantly clear that you get an attack with each extra arm.

Quote:
Normal: With only Multiweapon Fighting, a creater can only get a single attack with each extra weapon.
so what the original intent was is unquestionable. Do with that what you will. *shrug*

And the text was changed ....

So why change an unquestionable text if you want to keep the feat working that way?


3.5 wrote:

Multiweapon Fighting [General]

Prerequisites
Dex 13, three or more hands.
Benefit
Penalties for fighting with multiple weapons are reduced by 2 with the primary hand and reduced 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 its off hands. (It has one primary hand, and all the others are off hands.) See Two-Weapon Fighting.
Special
This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms.

Pathfinder wrote:

Prerequisites: Dex 13, three or more hands.

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.) See Two-Weapon Fighting.

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

Please indicate to me where the language changed. The quote in my previous post was from Improved Multiweapon Fighting. It simply made abundantly clear the intent all along that multiple arms means multiple attacks.

Liberty's Edge

ZOMG! They changed it from "Penalties... are reduced by 2" to "Penalties ... are reduced by -2"!

Clearly, they meant to completely invert the change... a negative reduction is... an increase! The MWF feat in Pathfinder makes penalties for fighting with multiple weapons GREATER than they would be without the feat!

It's the only possible reading! Why else would they change the text?


CBDunkerson wrote:
Calth wrote:
Way to totally misrepresent the thread.

Seriously?

The only representation I made, about the content of the thread, was that there are differing interpretations of various text about creatures with multiple arms. If that is a 'total misrepresentation' then you would be saying that you AGREE with my interpretation that each arm grants an extra weapon attack.

Somehow, I doubt that's what you meant. It's just what you actually said.

If you cant see how you misrepresented both the positions in the thread and the discussion around them, your own bias is so strong theres no point even discussing this with you.

Liberty's Edge

fretgod99 wrote:
3.5 wrote:

Multiweapon Fighting [General]

Prerequisites
Dex 13, three or more hands.
Benefit
Penalties for fighting with multiple weapons are reduced by 2 with the primary hand and reduced 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 its off hands. (It has one primary hand, and all the others are off hands.) See Two-Weapon Fighting.
Special
This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms.

Pathfinder wrote:

Prerequisites: Dex 13, three or more hands.

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.) See Two-Weapon Fighting.

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

Please indicate to me where the language changed. The quote in my previous post was from Improved Multiweapon Fighting. It simply made abundantly clear the intent all along that multiple arms means multiple attacks.

Open your 3.5 Monster Manual, page 304.

Multiweapon fighting, 3.5 wrote:


A creature with three or more hands can fight with a weapon in each hand. The creature can make one extra attack each round with each extra weapon.

Unquestionable what it do, right? And 3.5 Improved Multiweapon fighting refer to that.

It was removed in Pathfinder. Maybe it is a matter of word count, but if you use the 3.5 version as a reference, you should consider that too.

- * - * -

If you instead want to reference the 3.5 SRD document here, it lack that text and improved multiweapon fighting don't exist.

The wiki you cited has a little ting in the left high corner:
Home of user-generated,
homebrew, pages!

The guys that made it are mixing 3.5 open source materials with Wizard of the coast materials. Something that Paizo can't do.

Liberty's Edge

I'll just note that no one has even tried to dispute this;

Fact 1: Every single stat block representing a creature holding weapons in three or more arms allows them to attack with each of those weapons in the same round.
Fact 2: None of these stat blocks contains an ability (other than the Kasatha Multi-Armed ability, as interpreted by the 'one attack per arm' side') which would allow these multi-arm attacks.

Conclusion: Everyone at Paizo who has ever made a stat block of this type agreed that each arm holding a weapon could be used to attack - without needing to add a separate ability stating this.

51 to 100 of 164 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Multiweapon fighting path All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.