Multiweapon Fighting feat is the end of that "chain" of feats, as the TWF feats that continue from TWF do not apply to MWF.
Ask your GM
That's totally true !!!
But if the GM allow multiweapon fighting for the players then it should replace two-weapon fighting if the player has it... That is stated in the feat after all ;)
I am the DM and I've got only two armed players... :p
But if one of my player sprout a third arm then I will allow multiweapon fighting as a feat for this player, since he qualify for it, to replace the two-weapon fighting feat... Since I authorize Craft Construct I am in the RAW by authorizing multiweapon fighting for players...
I will certainly also houserule that multiweapon fighting qualify as a pre requisite for two-weapon fighting feat since I use this rule when I construct my monsters... ;)
For now it's just a houserule, nothing saying that MWF can replace TWF as a pre requiste for TWF Feat... :)
dex of 19 and MWF to take Multiweapon Mastery, for instance
No, no, no... Multiweapon Mastery is NOT a feat, it's an extraordinary ability... I would not let my players take Multiweapon Mastery ;)
dex of 19 and MWF to take Multiweapon Mastery, for instanceNo, no, no... Multiweapon Mastery is NOT a feat, it's an extraordinary ability... I would not let my players take Multiweapon Mastery ;)
Especially since MWM typically removes all penalties associated with attacking with multiple weapons. That's way too good for a PC, especially with a prereq of Dex 19. Maybe like Dex 25 and BAB +16 or something. But even then, no I probably wouldn't let a PC have it.
How's this: Str 25, Dex 19, BAB +16.
Anyway, I was actually considering making it a feat tree if that ever came up, and would likely need an investment of like 4 feats.
Also, how many things in pathfinder actually have MWF, I was surprised that neither girrilons nor Mariliths had it, it's kind of... nuts
Girallons attack with natural weapons, so they don't need it. Mariliths have Multiweapon Mastery, which is a better ability and therefore also don't need it.
I'd still keep the prereq high for DEX. The hallmark for two or multiweapon fighting abilities in PF is high Dexterity. Strength has little to nothing to do with it.
So for Leveled Mutations, first I give them MWF, then at a higher level that's replaced by Multi weapon mastery.
I'm going to let fighters only use these SAs as feats for prerequisites for fighter feats. Thus rangers can use precise shot with two bows, but sorcerers cannot. Fighters need more love.
Keep in mind I'm talking strictly homebrew at this point. I'm also trying to keep this relatively simple.
Especially since MWM typically removes all penalties associated with attacking with multiple weapons. That's way too good for a PC, especially with a prereq of Dex 19. Maybe like Dex 25 and BAB +16 or something. But even then, no I probably wouldn't let a PC have it.dex of 19 and MWF to take Multiweapon Mastery, for instanceNo, no, no... Multiweapon Mastery is NOT a feat, it's an extraordinary ability... I would not let my players take Multiweapon Mastery ;)
I could maybe see it as a capstone ability for an archetype focused on MWF.
|
Multiweapon Fighting feat is the end of that "chain" of feats, as the TWF feats that continue from TWF do not apply to MWF.
Ask your GMThat's totally true !!!
But if the GM allow multiweapon fighting for the players then it should replace two-weapon fighting if the player has it... That is stated in the feat after all ;)
I am the DM and I've got only two armed players... :p
But if one of my player sprout a third arm then I will allow multiweapon fighting as a feat for this player, since he qualify for it, to replace the two-weapon fighting feat... Since I authorize Craft Construct I am in the RAW by authorizing multiweapon fighting for players...
I will certainly also houserule that multiweapon fighting qualify as a pre requisite for two-weapon fighting feat since I use this rule when I construct my monsters... ;)
For now it's just a houserule, nothing saying that MWF can replace TWF as a pre requiste for TWF Feat... :)
Just keep in mind that the extra attacks that the later TWF feats give a character is already being used in MWF. (Usually, most multi armed races have Four arms) Four attacks at first level is a lot.
For Standard PC races I would mostly agree that 4 is high but we already have pc races getting into the 3s and 4s with natural attacks fairly early and a with the right class/archetype you can hit that number in a few levels if you really want.
|
|
Typically with lower damage output and lower to hit probability. (Bite, claw, claw, tail slap is easy enough to get with the right combination)
Natural Attacks usually have the Bite do 1.5 str as a primary attack, but it is lower (1.0) when used as a part of a full attack.
All take a hit (-5) to hit, and Multiattack is also a bestiary feat.
Funny enough, my Changling had a mistake on Herolab, making it so she could have two lashes (Spiritualist -Ectoplasmist-) and two claw attacks for four attacks. (I didn't actually do this, the lashes need to be wielded as noted in the 3rd level ability)
See, it counted the lashes as natural attacks, and they are attached by tendricals of plasmic tethers. I believe that has been corrected.
All take a hit (-5) to hit, and Multiattack is also a bestiary feat.
The -5 penalty is only for secondary natural attacks.
Secondary attacks are specifically designated as such. All natural weapon attacks used in conjunction with iterative attacks are considered secondary.
|
|
I have been confused by that, as typically all the attacks of a monster usually are the same bonus. I believe a bite is a primary with the Claw Claw being secondary, but not all monsters have bites.
Do you know if there is always a primary attack with natural attacks?
Monsters with ONLY natural attacks should always have at least one primary attack. Claws and bites are both primary attacks normally. Even attacks which are usually secondary (hoof, tentacle, wing, pincer, tail, etc) may become primary if they are the only attack type. Conversely, if the creature also attacks with weapons then all of its natural attacks become secondary.
I have been confused by that, as typically all the attacks of a monster usually are the same bonus. I believe a bite is a primary with the Claw Claw being secondary, but not all monsters have bites.
Do you know if there is always a primary attack with natural attacks?
If you played 3.5 much, that's likely the source of confusion. Natural Attacks worked differently in 3.5; creatures had one primary attack and the rest were secondary.
In PF, attacks are globally identified as primary or secondary. So Claws are always primary attacks*, even if the creature also has a bite.
* Leaving the combination of natural and manufactured attacks out of it
I have been confused by that, as typically all the attacks of a monster usually are the same bonus. I believe a bite is a primary with the Claw Claw being secondary, but not all monsters have bites.
Do you know if there is always a primary attack with natural attacks?
If you played 3.5 much, that's likely the source of confusion. Natural Attacks worked differently in 3.5; creatures had one primary attack and the rest were secondary.
In PF, attacks are globally identified as primary or secondary. So Claws are always primary attacks*, even if the creature also has a bite.
* Leaving the combination of natural and manufactured attacks out of it
Which is a substantial difference if your looking at gaining 2-3 primaries and 1-2 secondaries.
Are you trying to say both claws are one attack?
That's why bite has to be the primary attack.
Are you trying to say both claws are one attack?
That's why bite has to be the primary attack.
No. Unlike in 3.5 the other attacks do not get downgraded to secondary attacks.
If I have a bite and 2 claw attacks then I get 3 attack rolls all with the same bonus.Look at tigers in the bestiary.
Are you trying to say both claws are one attack?
That's why bite has to be the primary attack.No. Unlike in 3.5 the other attacks do not get downgraded to secondary attacks.
If I have a bite and 2 claw attacks then I get 3 attack rolls all with the same bonus.
Look at tigers in the bestiary.
Thanks. I was a little confused.
Well being that't its been a few weeks lets hope for some kind of FaQ on this debacle soon.
I know but I have faith and belief and the power of friendship.
I know but I have faith and belief and the power of friendship.
Well, friendship is magic, so I've heard.
Been gone a few weeks any news on this front from anywhere?
Fretgod99 - - -
Ah, so things like stings, tail swipes and such are secondary, then? I think that would be consistent with the Bestiary entries.
Yes. Those attacks are always* secondary, so attack at BAB-5 and get 1/2 STR.
*Unless they are the only natural attack form that creature has, in which case the only attack form is always** primary, when not combined with manufactured attacks.
**Unless the creature has a specific quality like the horse's docile, but those specific rules should be spelled out in the creatures stat block.
Has this topic ever received an official response?
Hard to say for sure, since it all ties into the infamous "Metaphorical Hands of Effort" FAQ.
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.
Emphasis mine.
Both = 2: no more, no less.
The FAQ is not applicable to anyone with more than two hands.
Has this topic ever received an official response?
Nope and honestly with FAQ timings being as spotty as they are it probably won't.
Depends on how you have extra arms (or, more correctly, hands).