Does having extra arms grant extra off hand attacks.


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 282 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

CBDunkerson wrote:
Calth wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:

AP #88, page 49

Intellect Devourer Inhabited Kasatha Rogue 7
Melee: mwk short sword +8 (1d6+3/19-20), 2 mwk short swords +8 (1d6+1/19-20)

Three manufactured weapon attacks.

Bestiary creature
Kasatha is both a bestiary creature AND a PC playable race (which inherently invalidates your entire 'only bestiary creatures get one weapon attack per arm' argument). The intellect devourer is just controlling the Kasatha.

Doesn't matter, a bestiary statblock is not a sufficient rules argument. It doesn't invalidate my argument that PCs only get 2 hands of effort. You need to provide a rule that PCs, not bestiary creatures, get attacks from having arms. But one doesn't exist, so you cant. There is no intrinsic relationship between limbs and number of attacks for PCs.


The Kasatha Rogue has an editing error. Three attacks when it has four arms. Look at other posts about this subject. The Kasatha uses all four of it's arms. Hell it has a Ranger Archtype that uses two Bows and is suggested taking TWF and the rest of those feats to reduce penalties for firing two bows at the same time.
Now is it realistic he could fire two bows? No, and our GM said said no to using and firing two muskets for that reason. However the Rules state a Kasatha can use and fire two bows in one full attack action.

Liberty's Edge

Calth wrote:
Doesn't matter, a bestiary statblock is not a sufficient rules argument. It doesn't invalidate my argument that PCs only get 2 hands of effort. You need to provide a rule that PCs, not bestiary creatures, get attacks from having arms. But one doesn't exist, so you cant.

Actually, two exist. The aforementioned 'Normal' state in the MWF feat which you insist on reading as unrelated to how all 3+ weapon bestiary entries work and;

"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."
ARG, pg 239

Not surprisingly, the Kasatha entry in the ARG (pg 233) has the 8 RP / four arm version of this trait. Specific rule that PCs get attacks from having multiple arms. Identical to the MWF rule you are mis-interpreting. Identical to all 3+ weapon bestiary entries. Identical to TWF rules.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Derek Dalton wrote:
The Kasatha Rogue has an editing error. Three attacks when it has four arms.

Not an error. Look at the equipment entry... it only HAS three swords. For whatever reason the fourth arm doesn't have a weapon in this case.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Calth wrote:
Doesn't matter, a bestiary statblock is not a sufficient rules argument. It doesn't invalidate my argument that PCs only get 2 hands of effort. You need to provide a rule that PCs, not bestiary creatures, get attacks from having arms. But one doesn't exist, so you cant.

Actually, two exist. The aforementioned 'Normal' state in the MWF feat which you insist on reading as unrelated to how all 3+ weapon bestiary entries work and;

"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."
ARG, pg 239

Not surprisingly, the Kasatha entry in the ARG (pg 233) has the 8 RP / four arm version of this trait. Specific rule that PCs get attacks from having multiple arms. Identical to the MWF rule you are mis-interpreting. Identical to all 3+ weapon bestiary entries. Identical to TWF rules.

Not seeing anything about attacks in that textblock. You are assuming a rule that doesn't exist.


The Kasatha Rogue has an editing error. Three attacks when it has four arms.
Not an error. Look at the equipment entry... it only HAS three swords. For whatever reason the fourth arm doesn't have a weapon in this case.
That seems another editing error. Three short swords, unless he could only afford three. Magic weapons for a Kasatha gets expensive fast

Liberty's Edge

Derek Dalton wrote:
That seems another editing error. Three short swords, unless he could only afford three.

No, still not an error. The fourth hand has a buckler. Since that arm isn't being used to attack, the shield bonus is retained and there is no attack penalty from the buckler.

+8 attack bonuses on all three arms are;
+5 BAB + 3 strength bonus + 1 masterwork + 1 weapon focus - 2 MWF penalty with light weapons

Which answers another question... light weapons DO reduce MWF penalties by two just like TWF penalties. Otherwise, the MWF penalties here would be -4 and each attack would be at +6 rather than +8.


If you fight with multiple weapons go light for all of them such as swords or Saw tooth Sabers work as well. Using a shield in the lower hand not a bad idea.

Liberty's Edge

CBDunkerson wrote:
Calth wrote:
Natural weapon attacks do not follow the same rules as manufactured weapon attacks, which is what the discussion is about, so your first point is irrelevant.
So... Kasatha can use their four arms to make four fist natural weapon attacks... but not four manufactured weapon attacks? If they put on gauntlets the punching action suddenly becomes impossible for two arms?

With the right spell I can transform in plenty of creatures with a large number of natural attacks (a gargoyles is a common example). I get all the natural attacks.

I don't get more weapon attacks that those allowed by my natural form.

Natural attacks and weapon attacks follow different rules.

Liberty's Edge

Talonhawke wrote:
Yes any variances from normal operations are in the ability sections. For the rules to change for a creature those changes are spelled out somewhere not just plugged in with no accompanying rules. The marillith has 6 off hands nothing spells out that this is a difference than how a future 6 armed construct might work. It does spell out why there are no penalties. If it just broke the rules then it would just have the attacks listed with out explaining the reason why there were no penalties.

So a animate object in the form of a statue get an additional attack without the need to spend Construction Points to buy the Additional Attack ability, right? And if it is a statue of the goddess Kali by your logic it get 4 attack.

Instead it has to pay for it.
PRD wrote:


Additional Attack (Ex, 1 CP): Gains an additional slam attack.

How many creatures with 2 arms have 1 slam attack.

And just to make the opposite example:
PRD wrote:


Shoggoth
This immense mound of black slime thunders forward, eyes and mouths and even stranger things forming in its heaving bulk.
Melee 4 slams +30 (3d6+15/19–20 plus grab)

4 slam attack, zero arms.

So no, the number of appendages alone don't grant an equal number of attacks.

Liberty's Edge

Derek Dalton wrote:

The Kasatha Rogue has an editing error. Three attacks when it has four arms. Look at other posts about this subject. The Kasatha uses all four of it's arms. Hell it has a Ranger Archtype that uses two Bows and is suggested taking TWF and the rest of those feats to reduce penalties for firing two bows at the same time.

Now is it realistic he could fire two bows? No, and our GM said said no to using and firing two muskets for that reason. However the Rules state a Kasatha can use and fire two bows in one full attack action.

and that ranger archetype 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?

Liberty's Edge

CBDunkerson wrote:
Calth wrote:
Doesn't matter, a bestiary statblock is not a sufficient rules argument. It doesn't invalidate my argument that PCs only get 2 hands of effort. You need to provide a rule that PCs, not bestiary creatures, get attacks from having arms. But one doesn't exist, so you cant.

Actually, two exist. The aforementioned 'Normal' state in the MWF feat which you insist on reading as unrelated to how all 3+ weapon bestiary entries work and;

"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."
ARG, pg 239

Not surprisingly, the Kasatha entry in the ARG (pg 233) has the 8 RP / four arm version of this trait. Specific rule that PCs get attacks from having multiple arms. Identical to the MWF rule you are mis-interpreting. Identical to all 3+ weapon bestiary entries. Identical to TWF rules.

Do you realize that you are undercutting your argument, not supporting it?

You have just pointed out that the Kasatha pay a price to get the use of multiple arms. But the whole argument in the thread is that multiple arms automatically grant multiple attacks.

That beside the simple fact that it still don't say that they get extra weapon attacks.

And another thing, where is the often cited Multi-Armed trait?

PRD wrote:


Other Racial Traits
This category covers various traits that other categories do not, which can augment your race in a number of different ways.
Multi-Armed (4 RP):

And where are the traits that grant additional attacks?

PRD wrote:


Offense Racial Traits


The Kasatha doesn't get the extra attacks any more then a human unless he takes the appropriate feats. Now our group has stated in the case of the Kasatha he should start with Multi Weapon Fighting rather then TWF. In this case MWF counts as TWF for feats requiring it. We have ruled Improved and Greater TWF apply allowing him to gain the extra attacks with all four of his arms.
People of the stars stated a Kasatha has a primary hand the rest considered off hand. Now the ranger Archtype I keep mentioning drives home my point on how he uses his arms. Two Bows requires four fully functioning arms. Therefore rather then use them in this way he could take Multi Weapon Fighting and fight with four arms wielding four arms.
This is another case of wording and intent. I believe Pazio meant for players to play them as four armed characters using Multi Weapon fighting in place of TWF and later if he chose the improved and greater TWF using all four arms.

Liberty's Edge

Additional evidence confirming that the "Normal" condition for multiple weapons is one attack per arm;

Essentially the argument against the Multi-Armed race trait granting attacks is that when it says you can "wield" weapons in each hand that does not necessarily mean that you can ATTACK with those weapons. Yet, elsewhere multi-weapon wield and attack are clearly the same;

"Multiweapon Defense
When you make a full-attack action, you may choose not to take an attack with a number of your wielded weapons other than your primary weapon. For each attack you forgo, you gain a +1 shield bonus to your AC for that round. This bonus stacks with itself to a maximum bonus of +5, but not with shield bonuses to AC from other sources."

That you may choose not to attack with your "wielded" weapons perforce means that you CAN attack with your wielded weapons. Each wielded weapon is available for attack.

"Multiweapon Specialist
When you wield one-handed or light weapons in each of your arms, and all of those weapons belong to the same weapon group (as defined for the fighter class), all attacks with those weapons gain a +2 bonus on damage rolls."

You get bonuses to damage for attacks with all of your wielded weapons. Again, wielded and available for attack are the same thing.

Next up: The 'Mutant' template from Numeria, Land of Fallen Stars can be added to any living corporeal creature, including PCs. It includes the option;

"Extra Arm (Ex): The mutant has an extra arm and gains Multiweapon Fighting as a bonus feat if this mutation brings its total number of arms above two. The ability can be taken multiple times, adding an arm each time.'

Does not say anything about the extra arm(s) adding attacks, but if that is NOT the case then the Multiweapon Fighting bonus feat will never do anything. It is illogical to believe that this ability grants a bonus feat that can never be used. Rather, the text does not say that extra arms grant extra attacks because that is already established by the 'Normal' condition of MWF and numerous other sources.

Also: The 'Four Armed Mudra Skeleton' gets a higher Dex, two extra arms, Multiweapon Fighting, and Weapon Finesse. We have established that Multiweapon Fighting only adjusts penalties rather than granting additional attacks... yet these skeletons suddenly have four short sword attacks (again at only -2 MWF penalties, again confirming that light weapons reduce MWF penalties by 2 just as they do TWF penalties). So where did the extra attacks come from? They aren't listed amongst the changes... unless we accept the 'Normal' condition of the MWF feat that you get one attack per arm.

Finally, in looking through the various multi-armed examples I think we can also see how MWF works with two-handed weapons. The Lhaksharut (B2), Sahaugin Champion (Monster Codex), Sahaugin Prince (Monster Codex), and Upasunda (B3) all wield two-handed weapons in addition to one-handed and/or natural attacks. All of these two-handed attacks get the normal 1.5x strength damage bonus. All one-handed weapon attacks accompanying them get normal 1x strength. Natural attacks get 1x or 0.5x strength damage bonus depending on whether they are primary or secondary as normal. In short, there seems to be no MWF impact on Str damage bonuses.

The Upasunda uses its two-handed weapon in two off-hands while all the others use a primary hand and an off-hand. Unfortunately, all have multiweapon mastery, so we can't really see how/if two-handed weapons impact MWF penalties.

Given that none of these examples allow TWO two-handed weapons, and the only case which DOES have that, the Kasatha Bow Nomad ranger archetype, makes it a special class ability, it seems likely that it is not normally possible for a four armed creature to wield two two-handed weapons at the same time (otherwise the archetype ability would be adding nothing).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You still need an actual rule. Indirect assumptions don't matter. You need actual words on a page that actually say gaining an arm gives you an attack.

Otherwise what makes an arm special. We know from the armor spike faq that the ability to wield additional weapons doesn't confer additional attacks.

Sczarni

I think that developers wouldn't skip such an important rule which would allow characters multiple attacks due to additional limbs. Yes, some creatures have them and yes, I am sure that you can find some which can be played as PCs even. The developers aren't perfect and sometimes, they get stuck in fluff and numbers. But it's extremely unlikely that developers intended to create such large dis-balance in the game. I am not talking about one silly additional natural attack here, but four or six additional attacks. Such character would clearly be a bit broken. And don't fight with the implications or ask me to quote RAW. I won't. The only thing that I am gonna recommend is to check another 50 topics which tried to debate this same thing all over again.

Adam

Liberty's Edge

Calth wrote:
You still need an actual rule. ... You need actual words on a page that actually say gaining an arm gives you an attack.

I've already quoted two rules which say exactly that... the MWF feat and the Multi-Armed race trait. You are interpreting those rules to NOT mean you can attack with weapons held in your arms, but I don't think those interpretations are logical... not from the actual wording, and certainly not in the face of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Malag, actually a two armed PC with the TWF feats can get just as many attacks as a four armed PC with MWF (e.g. both max out at 7 attacks with BAB 16+). Some people believe that you can combine MWF with ITWF and GTWF to get tons of attacks, but there is very little evidence supporting that view (e.g. not a single creature in any Bestiary, Module, AP, etc published by Paizo which actually works that way).


CBDunkerson wrote:
Calth wrote:
You still need an actual rule. ... You need actual words on a page that actually say gaining an arm gives you an attack.

I've already quoted two rules which say exactly that... the MWF feat and the Multi-Armed race trait. You are interpreting those rules to NOT mean you can attack with weapons held in your arms, but I don't think those interpretations are logical... not from the actual wording, and certainly not in the face of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Malag, actually a two armed PC with the TWF feats can get just as many attacks as a four armed PC with MWF (e.g. both max out at 7 attacks with BAB 16+). Some people believe that you can combine MWF with ITWF and GTWF to get tons of attacks, but there is very little evidence supporting that view (e.g. not a single creature in any Bestiary, Module, AP, etc published by Paizo which actually works that way).

I am not interpreting anything. Nothing in those rules say that you gain an attack. Nothing. You are reading into them and assuming a non-existent rule. There is zero hard evidence relating the number of arms a PC has and the number of manufactured weapon attacks it can make.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Calth wrote:
I am not interpreting anything.

I'll just leave this here as an absolute refutation of your position... and/or existence.


This is another example of the publishers poor editing and writing. Desecrate and Undead Master is another argument that reflects intent and actual rules being completely different.
Now in the case of the Kasatha our group has said MWF functions as TWF for them and allows them to take all the related TWF feats using all four arms to attack with. The intent clear that Kasatha being four arms can and should wield four weapons at once. There are other examples of classes and races having four arms and in case they usually state how those secondary arms function. The Tronx's arms can't be used except for Grappling and performing minor actions drawing items and such.
Now our group has played a Kasatha and while it's wicked at melee it's not so powerful that our group has decided to play one every time they wanted to be a fighter type. It to us is a different race and one we like. We still stick to our favorite races and classes.
Until Pazio says officially what they actually meant about MWF and four arms that's how our group will run it.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Calth wrote:
I am not interpreting anything.
I'll just leave this here as an absolute refutation of your position... and/or existence.

I am sorry that asking for an actual rule that supports your position in a rules discussion is so offensive to your sensibilities.


Calth, you're being silly.

It's quite clear that a creature with 3 or more arms (and hands attached to those arms) is allowed to perform the TWF action, but how they run it is different in comparison to how creatures with 2 arms (and hands) operate.

Instead of having a single Main Hand and a single Off Hand, they have more than one Off Hand. They might have two, they might have three, they might have four, they might have more. So how would we determine how many Off Hands a creature has?

In the case of a humanoid, and based off of the numerous TWF FAQs (and Multiweapon Fighting functioning identical in terms of mathematical adjustments and fundamentals), it's quite clear that the following must apply:

A. You must have all of your weapons drawn and ready to attack prior to taking the TWF action.
B. You must declare which weapon is your primary and which weapon(s) is/are your off-hand(s).
C. Each weapon must occupy at least one hand. (Even weapons that don't normally occupy a hand, such as Armor Spikes, Spiked Boots, Barbazu Beards, etc. are considered as requiring a hand, both physical and otherwise, to use.)
D. Your total statistical modifier cannot equate more than how many weapon attacks you possess. For example, a Kasatha could not TWF with two Greatswords, as even if he possesses the physical hands to do so, the statistical multiplier equates to 3xMod, whereas a standard Kasatha performing TWF or MWF would have 2.5xMod (1 Primary = 1x, 1 Off-Hand = 0.5x).

If a FAQ says you can't TWF with a Greatsword and Armor Spikes because you invalidate C and D, then it's quite clear that having more than two arms, forcing you to replace TWF for MWF, creating a rules adjustment (meaning no ITWF, GTWF, DS, TWR, etc). and multiple Paizo-endorsed FAQs telling us how TWF/MWF operates, is more than enough proof to state that an arm, for the purposes of TWF/MWF, provides an attack you can execute with.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Calth, you're being silly.

It's quite clear that a creature with 3 or more arms (and hands attached to those arms) is allowed to perform the TWF action, but how they run it is different in comparison to how creatures with 2 arms (and hands) operate.

Instead of having a single Main Hand and a single Off Hand, they have more than one Off Hand. They might have two, they might have three, they might have four, they might have more. So how would we determine how many Off Hands a creature has?

In the case of a humanoid, and based off of the numerous TWF FAQs (and Multiweapon Fighting functioning identical in terms of mathematical adjustments and fundamentals), it's quite clear that the following must apply:

A. You must have all of your weapons drawn and ready to attack prior to taking the TWF action.
B. You must declare which weapon is your primary and which weapon(s) is/are your off-hand(s).
C. Each weapon must occupy at least one hand. (Even weapons that don't normally occupy a hand, such as Armor Spikes, Spiked Boots, Barbazu Beards, etc. are considered as requiring a hand, both physical and otherwise, to use.)
D. Your total statistical modifier cannot equate more than how many weapon attacks you possess. For example, a Kasatha could not TWF with two Greatswords, as even if he possesses the physical hands to do so, the statistical multiplier equates to 3xMod, whereas a standard Kasatha performing TWF or MWF would have 2.5xMod (1 Primary = 1x, 1 Off-Hand = 0.5x).

If a FAQ says you can't TWF with a Greatsword and Armor Spikes because you invalidate C and D, then it's quite clear that having more than two arms, forcing you to replace TWF for MWF, creating a rules adjustment (meaning no ITWF, GTWF, DS, TWR, etc). and multiple Paizo-endorsed FAQs telling us how TWF/MWF operates, is more than enough proof to state that an arm, for the purposes of TWF/MWF, provides an attack you can execute with.

Citation needed. Again you are making assumptions that aren't actually present in the rules text. Arms/offhand don't give attacks because no rule says they do. You are assuming an equivalent rule to the TWF rule but there isn't one. That is the RAW. If you want to argue RAI its easy enough to argue the omission is intentional due to balance reasons: All PCs regardless of race get the same number of manufactured weapon attacks.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Sigh.

This.

Again?

TWF has one (1) Main hand. All other hands are Off Hands. You TWF with as many attacks as is given in your normal BAB plus the additional attacks given by TWF.

Normally, you have one Main and one Off Hand. Having more arms only gives you more Off Hand weapons, not more attacks.

One can not wield Two Handed weapons and use Off Hand weapons at the same time. (A feat or two can change that in specific circumstances, See Thunder and Fang thread)

Natural weapons typically have lower damage but all that the creature has can be used at the same time (Primary and Secondary at a -5 when hitting with more than one attack) Multi-Attack takes the penalty down to -2.

A Dragon, for example, has 2 claws, bite, wing buffet, tail slap and possibly rend for the claws.

One last point... One declares which weapon is the Primary/main hand. All others are Off Hand weapons.

Liberty's Edge

CBDunkerson wrote:
Calth wrote:
You still need an actual rule. ... You need actual words on a page that actually say gaining an arm gives you an attack.

I've already quoted two rules which say exactly that... the MWF feat and the Multi-Armed race trait. You are interpreting those rules to NOT mean you can attack with weapons held in your arms, but I don't think those interpretations are logical... not from the actual wording, and certainly not in the face of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Malag, actually a two armed PC with the TWF feats can get just as many attacks as a four armed PC with MWF (e.g. both max out at 7 attacks with BAB 16+). Some people believe that you can combine MWF with ITWF and GTWF to get tons of attacks, but there is very little evidence supporting that view (e.g. not a single creature in any Bestiary, Module, AP, etc published by Paizo which actually works that way).

You really think that 3 off hand attacks at full BAB -2 are equivalent to 3 off hand attacks at full BAB -2/-7/-12?

Liberty's Edge

Diego Rossi wrote:
You really think that 3 off hand attacks at full BAB -2 are equivalent to 3 off hand attacks at full BAB -2/-7/-12?

No. Indeed, I said otherwise earlier in this thread.

However, I do think that they're both three attacks... and thus that complaints that MWF provides too many attacks compared to other options is factually inaccurate.


Calth wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Calth, you're being silly.

It's quite clear that a creature with 3 or more arms (and hands attached to those arms) is allowed to perform the TWF action, but how they run it is different in comparison to how creatures with 2 arms (and hands) operate.

Instead of having a single Main Hand and a single Off Hand, they have more than one Off Hand. They might have two, they might have three, they might have four, they might have more. So how would we determine how many Off Hands a creature has?

In the case of a humanoid, and based off of the numerous TWF FAQs (and Multiweapon Fighting functioning identical in terms of mathematical adjustments and fundamentals), it's quite clear that the following must apply:

A. You must have all of your weapons drawn and ready to attack prior to taking the TWF action.
B. You must declare which weapon is your primary and which weapon(s) is/are your off-hand(s).
C. Each weapon must occupy at least one hand. (Even weapons that don't normally occupy a hand, such as Armor Spikes, Spiked Boots, Barbazu Beards, etc. are considered as requiring a hand, both physical and otherwise, to use.)
D. Your total statistical modifier cannot equate more than how many weapon attacks you possess. For example, a Kasatha could not TWF with two Greatswords, as even if he possesses the physical hands to do so, the statistical multiplier equates to 3xMod, whereas a standard Kasatha performing TWF or MWF would have 2.5xMod (1 Primary = 1x, 1 Off-Hand = 0.5x).

If a FAQ says you can't TWF with a Greatsword and Armor Spikes because you invalidate C and D, then it's quite clear that having more than two arms, forcing you to replace TWF for MWF, creating a rules adjustment (meaning no ITWF, GTWF, DS, TWR, etc). and multiple Paizo-endorsed FAQs telling us how TWF/MWF operates, is more than enough proof to state that an arm, for the purposes of TWF/MWF, provides an attack you can execute with.

Citation needed. Again you are making assumptions that...

You do realize that if these assumptions aren't made, then other stuff that's not explicitly stated in the rules flies as well. Everybody knows the whole "Having the Dead condition doesn't mean you can't act or change the outcome of combat, because it doesn't say you can't." If you're going to say that these "assumptions" can't be made, then other assumptions can't be made either, and the game descends into madness.

It's quite clear what the rules are intended in regards to TWF/MWF and attacks, and I've already said there are FAQs which support my statement (which you apparently think aren't "citations"). The FAQs represent the RAI of the rule, and the RAI of the rule is just as important, if not more important, than the RAW. If anyone wants to rule otherwise, then they would be in homebrew territory.

Liberty's Edge

Found another corner case. The Xill Matriarch from Occult Bestiary can use its four arms to attack with two bows at the same time. It also has ITWF to get an iterative attack with the second bow.

Thus, it seems to exactly match the Kasatha Bow Nomad archetype without possessing a specific ability to grant that capability. Since bows don't get 1.5x strength bonus damage this doesn't really play in to the question of how/if wielding multiple two-handed melee weapons works. That and how combinations of MWF and ITWF/GTWF work would seem to be the biggest questions on this topic - in that they are least (or not at all) explored by existing examples.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

CBDunkerson wrote:
Found another corner case. The Xill Matriarch from Occult Bestiary

Bestiary entries have tons of errors. Every one. Even the Bestiary I after what? 5 printings?

They all have errors, these errors generally don't get fixed, and these errors often violate the rules.

Liberty's Edge

James Risner wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Found another corner case. The Xill Matriarch from Occult Bestiary

Bestiary entries have tons of errors. Every one. Even the Bestiary I after what? 5 printings?

They all have errors, these errors generally don't get fixed, and these errors often violate the rules.

While what you say is true, it is a difficult to use that as a basis for an argument. What is the error? The example that support my position or the example that support the opposite position?

Choosing one over the other is a question of interpretation of the rules, so it is subjective.


Number of arms doesn't affect how many off-hand attacks you have unless it explicitly says so. If it did, then losing an arm ought to reduce your number of off-hand attacks, but nothing indicates that it does. You could get your arm cut off, but still TWF with a weapon in the other hand and a non-hand weapon (ie. armor spikes, unarmed strike, etc). Even a creature without any hands at all can make viable attacks using unarmed strikes and non-hand weapons. Therefore, gaining more hands doesn't automatically grant additional off-hand attacks; you need some rules element that explicitly states you have more than the one standard off-hand attack.


Kazaan wrote:
Number of arms doesn't affect how many off-hand attacks you have unless it explicitly says so. If it did, then losing an arm ought to reduce your number of off-hand attacks, but nothing indicates that it does. You could get your arm cut off, but still TWF with a weapon in the other hand and a non-hand weapon (ie. armor spikes, unarmed strike, etc). Even a creature without any hands at all can make viable attacks using unarmed strikes and non-hand weapons. Therefore, gaining more hands doesn't automatically grant additional off-hand attacks; you need some rules element that explicitly states you have more than the one standard off-hand attack.

Tell that to the Armor Spikes FAQ. When a FAQ says an official Paizo weapon, which doesn't normally require hands to use, requires a hand to use for TWF, both metaphorically and actually, then you know that more hands = more off-hand attacks, at least in regards to the TWF action.

That's also the entire point of MWF, and it specifically modifies TWF if you possess more than the standard amount of hands the game assumes you possess.

Liberty's Edge

James Risner wrote:

Bestiary entries have tons of errors. Every one. Even the Bestiary I after what? 5 printings?

They all have errors, these errors generally don't get fixed, and these errors often violate the rules.

Maybe so, but when numerous Bestiary and other stat block entries are consistent on various points (e.g. extra arms equals extra off-hand attacks, light weapons reduce MWF penalties by two, at least one two-handed weapon can be used with MWF) they can certainly be taken as indicative of general understanding and intent.

Indeed, I described the dual bow-wielding Xill Matriarch as a 'corner case' precisely because it is one of only two examples I know of which work that way (Kasatha Bow Nomad being the other). Thus, while suggestive, it might still be an exception or error.

Kazaan wrote:
Number of arms doesn't affect how many off-hand attacks you have unless it explicitly says so.

...and suddenly I'm seeing the black knight from Monty Python, "I'll bite your kneecaps off!"


Also, to add on the whole "lacking limbs" issue, let's bring up an armless PC.

This poor guy got his arms tore off by breaking the law and was dealt the related consequences of the kingdom (probably stole something, so he lost in arms as a means to feel what it's like to be robbed of something precious, also done to make sure he can't steal again). Whatever, the point is now, this PC has zero arms, which means he cannot carry or use anything that absolutely requires hands/arms.

Would this PC be able to TWF? Maybe. But that depends on how it's executed.

If the PC is just a regular Fighter type (or a Rogue, to fit the flavor), he can't feasibly TWF. The TWF action requires you to declare which weapons you're using before you perform TWF, as per the FAQ regarding if attacking with two weapons instead of just one constitutes performing TWF, meaning he might be able to declare things like a Barbazu Beard, Armor Spikes, or Boot Blades.

As a concept, there's nothing wrong with it at first creation. But, the problem with this is the Armor Spikes FAQ. This FAQ states that you cannot use Armor Spikes with a Two-Handed Weapon, and this is enforced for two reasons:

1. When performing TWF, every weapon counts as requiring an arm/hand to use. If Armor Spikes do not normally require a hand to operate, and a FAQ disallows its use with something that requires two hands to operate, then the same can be made for trying to TWF with the likes of merely Unarmed Strikes (with your legs or head).

2. If your total statistical modifiers are greater than what you could normally accomplish (such as getting 2x Strength to damage in comparison to the standard 1.5x Strength), it becomes disqualified in the eyes of balance. This is an "unwritten" rule, one that I don't personally agree with (as well as many others), but it is a reason why this is disallowed, and was one of the reasons presented when the FAQ explanation was questioned.

Now, if this guy took levels in Monk so as to improve his Unarmed Skills, and acquired Flurry of Blows, there might be hope for him after all to effectively TWF, though that is still not the case with Manufactured Weapons, as Flurry of Blows requires Monk-specific weapons (which usually require hands to use), or can only be used with Unarmed Strikes.

Again, it's heavily enforced by FAQ that weapons require hands to use, and when subjects that don't require hands to use normally, they are still treated as requiring hands to use.


Having extra arms/limbs does not give you extra offhand attacks, unless you have some ability which grants this very specifically.

I believe there are some incorrect monster stat blocks out there largely due to authors' unfamiliarity with the rules (no offense, author guys, the rules are a bit complicated). But these should be seen as the exception rather than the norm.

Liberty's Edge

CBDunkerson wrote:
James Risner wrote:

Bestiary entries have tons of errors. Every one. Even the Bestiary I after what? 5 printings?

They all have errors, these errors generally don't get fixed, and these errors often violate the rules.

Maybe so, but when numerous Bestiary and other stat block entries are consistent on various points (e.g. extra arms equals extra off-hand attacks, light weapons reduce MWF penalties by two, at least one two-handed weapon can be used with MWF) they can certainly be taken as indicative of general understanding and intent.

Indeed, I described the dual bow-wielding Xill Matriarch as a 'corner case' precisely because it is one of only two examples I know of which work that way (Kasatha Bow Nomad being the other). Thus, while suggestive, it might still be an exception or error.

Kazaan wrote:
Number of arms doesn't affect how many off-hand attacks you have unless it explicitly says so.
...and suddenly I'm seeing the black knight from Monty Python, "I'll bite your kneecaps off!"

I already pointed out that the Bow nomad archetype don't use multi weapon fighting.

It use Two weapon fighting.
People of the stars 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, twoweapon
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.

To repeat it again: several instances of two weapon fighting, zero of multi weapon fighting in that thext.

Xill matriarch:

Use 2 shortsword and 2 claws or two bows.
She has this ability:

D20PFSRD wrote:


Matriarch Weapon Mastery (Ex)

A xill matriarch never takes penalties on attack rolls when fighting with multiple weapons, adds her full Strength modifier on damage rolls with off-hand attacks, and treats her claws as primary attacks even when also wielding weapons. She is considered to have the Two-Weapon Fighting and Double Slice feats for the purpose of fulfilling prerequisites.

That is why she can take Improved two weapon fighting. A special ability described in her statblock.

So you previous post is simply wrong:

CBDunkerson wrote:

Found another corner case. The Xill Matriarch from Occult Bestiary can use its four arms to attack with two bows at the same time. It also has ITWF to get an iterative attack with the second bow.

Thus, it seems to exactly match the Kasatha Bow Nomad archetype without possessing a specific ability to grant that capability. Since bows don't get 1.5x strength bonus damage this doesn't really play in to the question of how/if wielding multiple two-handed melee weapons works. That and how combinations of MWF and ITWF/GTWF work would seem to be the biggest questions on this topic - in that they are least (or not at all) explored by existing examples.

She has a special ability that allow her to get the iterative with bows. And she hasn't multi weapon fighting at all.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Diego Rossi, you have misunderstood something because you are 'disagreeing' with me while saying the same things I was... Specifically, Xill Matriarch and Kasatha Bow Nomad can attack with two bows at the same time and get iterative attacks on the second bow with ITWF (and GWTF for the Bow Nomad).

As to the Xill Matriarch's 'Matriarch Weapon Mastery'... that gives her the equivalent of TWF, Double Slice, and Multiweapon Mastery... but not anything which would allow her to attack with two bows at the same time. This would imply that using two bows at once doesn't require any sort of special ability beyond having enough arms to do so... but the Kasatha Bow Nomad implies the opposite because it gets two bow attacks from a class ability.


The archtype for the Kasatha mentions use of TWF reducing penalties for using the two bows. Not an Archtype I'd honestly pick.


So we have a seeming to leaning towards needing a rule to allow extra attacks to gain them. So what is meant by Multi-Armed saying that only one hand is used as primary and all the extra arms are off-hands? Remembering that off-hands only exist inside of the TWF attack system? It was said that a human can have availble more than one off-hand weapon but can only use one per set off attacks. But those are listed as "can be used as an off-hand weapon" but they aren't extra off-hands.

Thats why I'm in the leaning of the extra hands/arms do grant extra attacks. A kasatha has per the multiarmed rule 1 primary and 3 off hands.

Liberty's Edge

Let's make this simple and take it one step at a time;

Armor Spikes
"You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case."

FAQ
"Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?

No.
Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks."

Armor spikes can be used to make an off-hand attack, but you can't (normally) make attacks with both a two-handed weapon and armor spikes because there is no off-hand available.

So what about creatures that have extra hands?

"Multiweapon Fighting (Combat)
This multi-armed creature is skilled at making attacks with multiple weapons.

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 in the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook.
Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms."

This says that the normal condition is that you have one primary hand and all others are off hands.

The specific text for the Kasatha says the same;
"Multi-Armed (Ex) A kasatha has four arms. One hand is considered its primary hand; all others are considered off hands. It can use any of its hands for other purposes that require free hands."

So a creature with three hands could attack with a two-handed weapon in its primary and one off-hand... and have another off-hand free. A four armed Kasatha would have two off-hands free.

So... does anyone dispute that these rules would allow (and no other rules disallow) a creature with three arms to make a full attack using both a two-handed weapon AND armor spikes? Or a two-handed weapon and a spiked gauntlet on the third hand?

Note that there are no 'extra attacks' being suggested here. Ignoring bonus iterative attacks there would be one attack with the two-handed weapon and one with the armor spikes. Two attacks, just using three arms. Rules legal or not?


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
Number of arms doesn't affect how many off-hand attacks you have unless it explicitly says so. If it did, then losing an arm ought to reduce your number of off-hand attacks, but nothing indicates that it does. You could get your arm cut off, but still TWF with a weapon in the other hand and a non-hand weapon (ie. armor spikes, unarmed strike, etc). Even a creature without any hands at all can make viable attacks using unarmed strikes and non-hand weapons. Therefore, gaining more hands doesn't automatically grant additional off-hand attacks; you need some rules element that explicitly states you have more than the one standard off-hand attack.

Tell that to the Armor Spikes FAQ. When a FAQ says an official Paizo weapon, which doesn't normally require hands to use, requires a hand to use for TWF, both metaphorically and actually, then you know that more hands = more off-hand attacks, at least in regards to the TWF action.

That's also the entire point of MWF, and it specifically modifies TWF if you possess more than the standard amount of hands the game assumes you possess.

Armor Spikes only require available off-hand attack economy; not a physical hand. You can use armor spikes even if your physical hand is occupied or missing. It's the subsuming of the off-hand attack economy by a two-handed weapon that prevents you from using Armor Spikes, not the fact that both physical hands are occupied.


This honestly has nothing to do with the Armor spikes FAQ, looking at a ruling based around the standard of 2 arms doesn't really help when we start looking at things not using that standard.


Kazaan wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
Number of arms doesn't affect how many off-hand attacks you have unless it explicitly says so. If it did, then losing an arm ought to reduce your number of off-hand attacks, but nothing indicates that it does. You could get your arm cut off, but still TWF with a weapon in the other hand and a non-hand weapon (ie. armor spikes, unarmed strike, etc). Even a creature without any hands at all can make viable attacks using unarmed strikes and non-hand weapons. Therefore, gaining more hands doesn't automatically grant additional off-hand attacks; you need some rules element that explicitly states you have more than the one standard off-hand attack.

Tell that to the Armor Spikes FAQ. When a FAQ says an official Paizo weapon, which doesn't normally require hands to use, requires a hand to use for TWF, both metaphorically and actually, then you know that more hands = more off-hand attacks, at least in regards to the TWF action.

That's also the entire point of MWF, and it specifically modifies TWF if you possess more than the standard amount of hands the game assumes you possess.

Armor Spikes only require available off-hand attack economy; not a physical hand. You can use armor spikes even if your physical hand is occupied or missing. It's the subsuming of the off-hand attack economy by a two-handed weapon that prevents you from using Armor Spikes, not the fact that both physical hands are occupied.
FAQ wrote:
Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.

If the reason for Armor Spikes not working is because of the unwritten rule, there would be no reason to implement that listed section of the FAQ, as it has no relevance to the original question. (I'm not saying it's not because of the unwritten rule, I'm saying it's not the only reason it's disallowed.)

Additionally, "off-hand" is a defined game term, referring to the secondary set of iteratives you receive for performing the TWF feat. I don't see why I couldn't make all of my Two-Handed Weapon attacks, remove a hand from my Two-Handed Weapon as a Free Action, and then make my Gauntlet attacks, as by RAW, I can do that. Except the FAQ would say no, because those arms are used for the entire duration of the action, and can't be substituted when performing the action, since it specifically states that when using a Two-Handed Weapon, my off-hand is "unavailable to make attacks."

Lastly, the rules for TWF circumvent the normalcy of Armor Spikes not requiring a hand to use. This is why I can interchange iteratives between a Longbow and an Unarmed Strike (i.e. a kick or a headbutt), but not TWF with them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Frankly, I don't know that it's really worth investing in a lengthy discussion on this until we get clarification. There is nothing in the rules to make a definitive ruling one way or the other. A lot of rules, FAQ, and developer language implies that a standard member of a race which has extra arms should have extra attacks. There is no explicit rule that allows said extra attacks. Thus, the impasse.

I know exactly how I'd play it and have said as much in any number of threads. But ultimately, I can't prove it works one way over another. Nobody can.

So as always, it's a YMMV, make sure you discuss it with your GM, thing.

*shrug*


fretgod99 wrote:
There is no explicit rule that allows said extra attacks.

There is no explicit rule stating characters with the "Dead" condition cannot act.

An explicit ruling on every possible occurrence would result in a tome written in thousands of pages of legalese, and still have people arguing over interpretation.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I actually think the rules stating that you get extra off-hand attacks for extra arms are explicitly stated, in two or three places, AND then confirmed by numerous examples. However, there will always be interpretations to the contrary... so yeah, a FAQ response would be helpful to confirm the rule.

Though really I'd be more interested in clearer info on the more esoteric theoretical combinations (e.g. can a Kasatha with MWF attack with a bow and two short swords at the same time?)


Snowlilly wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
There is no explicit rule that allows said extra attacks.

There is no explicit rule stating characters with the "Dead" condition cannot act.

An explicit ruling on every possible occurrence would result in a tome written in thousands of pages of legalese, and still have people arguing over interpretation.

I agree with you. I'm simply stating the contra point is going to remain unconvinced because there is no explicit rule otherwise. I've had the conversation numerous times. I know how it goes. Just throwing it out there in case someone was considering becoming invested in the conversation. It has no end without developer clarification.

And as I've said, I believe the rules support is absolutely there to allow the attacks. It's just not explicit. Some people don't think inference is allowed in rules discussion. I think that's preposterous, frankly, but that doesn't really change anybody's opinion.

EDIT: Basically, I see this playing out like the Sneak from Range issue that kept cropping up all the time, with the same conversation being rehashed every single time. All logic seems to point to one answer, but since there's no explicit, conclusive statement, people will still argue it.

Liberty's Edge

fretgod99 wrote:
And as I've said, I believe the rules support is absolutely there to allow the attacks. It's just not explicit.

Say, "ambiguous", rather than "not explicit" and we'd agree.

That is, it seems to me that the game developers wrote things which they intended to be clear / 'explicit' statements that extra arms give extra off-hands which can be used to make extra attacks (at specified penalties). This isn't something which has to be cobbled together with potentially unconnected bits from multiple sources... there are places where this rule IS directly / explicitly stated.

The problem is that none of those places is unambiguously written. It is possible to interpret each of them, in isolation, as meaning something else (though I find those interpretations implausible).


So with the extra arms mutation, I can say in the mutation after about 12 hours of using the limb, they can use it as an off hand for 2 weapon attack? Till then, they can't hit anything with or without a weapon. I just have to be clear.

Yeah, Alchemist needs a lot of cleaning up.

51 to 100 of 282 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Does having extra arms grant extra off hand attacks. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.