Does having extra arms grant extra off hand attacks.


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 282 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

29 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

As a break off of this thread I am making a thread for dicussion and hopefully if enough clicks are gained a definitive answer to the question, can a creature with extra arms make weapon attacks with all of them without using iterative attacks.
The dicussion stems from the fact that no rule specificlly allows more than 2 attacks a around without iterative attacks.

We see several creatures in the bestiary who use x attacks where x is the number of arms in a full attack in the way described above without a special ruling to allow it. We also see some with extra arms who only use 2 in their written attack sequences.

We also see Vestigal Arms which grants arms but gives a specific rule disallowing extra attacks lending to the position that by default extra arms means extra attacks.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Multiweapon Fighting (Beastiary) describes the normal condition for creatures with more 3 or more hands. -6 on the primary, -10 on attacks with each other hand.

Liberty's Edge

It is better to add "weapon attacks" in that question. As written it can be interpreted as including natural attacks.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Maezer wrote:
Multiweapon Fighting (Beastiary) describes the normal condition for creatures with more 3 or more hands. -6 on the primary, -10 on attacks with each other hand.

As mentioned in the other thread. The MWF feat adjusts the penalties on attacks. It in no way grants the ability to make those attacks. There is no rule for PCs that grants attacks based on number of arms.

Liberty's Edge

The other thread.
It is better to use that thread for rule discussions. At least we will avoid repeating the same arguments again and again.


Calth wrote:
Maezer wrote:
Multiweapon Fighting (Beastiary) describes the normal condition for creatures with more 3 or more hands. -6 on the primary, -10 on attacks with each other hand.
As mentioned in the other thread. The MWF feat adjusts the penalties on attacks. It in no way grants the ability to make those attacks. There is no rule for PCs that grants attacks based on number of arms.

No explicit rule. The implicit rule is present in the Normal line in the Multiweapon Fighting Feat from the Bestiary.


Just read the Kasatha entry in people of the stars. In it, it stated the Kasatha has a dominant one hand the rest are off hands. Now what that means to me is if he takes Multi weapon fighting and then later Greater and Improved Two weapon fighting all his hands are getting that extra attack. They went to talk about a Ranger archtype using two bows. They stated getting two weapon feats reduces the penalties for using them even. Now that two me suggests a Kasatha that wants to wield four weapons with the appropriate feats will be very nasty in combat. So a 7th level fighter with Multi weapon feat and improved two weapon feat will have a full attack looking like this On Hand +7,+2 Upper off hand +7,+2 Lower off hand +7,+2 Lower other offhand +7,+2 That is eight attacks with four of them probably hitting the others depending on stats and the monsters AC maybe not.
What I'm seeing looking at all of this is a Kasatha is meant to be used and played this way with Multi Weapon fighting and two weapon fighting.


Marilith is the other one that's used for this, it has one primary longsword and 5 off-hand longswords. It's only power to help that is "A marilith never takes penalties to her attack roll when fighting with multiple weapons."

I can tell you right now though, there's no explicit rules for this. The devs have explicitly said that all rules are written assuming humanoids (two arms, legs, hands, and feet).

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bob Bob Bob wrote:
I can tell you right now though, there's no explicit rules for this.

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.

Seems fairly explicit to me. Creature can attack "with its primary hand" and "all of its off hands" at specified penalties. The MWF feat then reduces those penalties. Works just like the Two-Weapon Fighting rules (not the feat) in the Core Rulebook, just with more arms.

What's more, there are numerous examples of creatures following this rule either as is or as modified by other specific abilities.


CBDunkerson wrote:
What's more, there are numerous examples of creatures following this rule either as is or as modified by other specific abilities.

Such as mariliths, vrolikais, lhaksharuts, upasundas, sahuagin champions, high girallons, umasis, and four-armed mudra skeletons.


Talonhawke wrote:

As a break off of this thread I am making a thread for dicussion and hopefully if enough clicks are gained a definitive answer to the question, can a creature with extra arms make weapon attacks with all of them without using iterative attacks.

The dicussion stems from the fact that no rule specificlly allows more than 2 attacks a around without iterative attacks.

We see several creatures in the bestiary who use x attacks where x is the number of arms in a full attack in the way described above without a special ruling to allow it. We also see some with extra arms who only use 2 in their written attack sequences.

We also see Vestigal Arms which grants arms but gives a specific rule disallowing extra attacks lending to the position that by default extra arms means extra attacks.

Having Arms doesn't always mean you gain more attacks. It allows you to take more attacks, assuming you have an available means to attack with those arms, such as by being given an effect that provides Claws. So if I were a Kasatha with both Beast Totem Rage and Feral Mutagen, I could make 4 Claw Attacks without problem.

Note, however, that the FAQ regarding Vestigial Arms states that even if you provide an effect which grants attacks to the Vestigial Arms (such as the Feral Mutagen, which gives 2 Claws that can be put on those arms, granting them attacks), you cannot take those attacks in addition to the ones you would be able to take without those arms, as the source of the attacks is the arms, not the effect granting the Claws.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:

As a break off of this thread I am making a thread for dicussion and hopefully if enough clicks are gained a definitive answer to the question, can a creature with extra arms make weapon attacks with all of them without using iterative attacks.

The dicussion stems from the fact that no rule specificlly allows more than 2 attacks a around without iterative attacks.

We see several creatures in the bestiary who use x attacks where x is the number of arms in a full attack in the way described above without a special ruling to allow it. We also see some with extra arms who only use 2 in their written attack sequences.

We also see Vestigal Arms which grants arms but gives a specific rule disallowing extra attacks lending to the position that by default extra arms means extra attacks.

Having Arms doesn't always mean you gain more attacks. It allows you to take more attacks, assuming you have an available means to attack with those arms, such as by being given an effect that provides Claws. So if I were a Kasatha with both Beast Totem Rage and Feral Mutagen, I could make 4 Claw Attacks without problem.

Note, however, that the FAQ regarding Vestigial Arms states that even if you provide an effect which grants attacks to the Vestigial Arms (such as the Feral Mutagen, which gives 2 Claws that can be put on those arms, granting them attacks), you cannot take those attacks in addition to the ones you would be able to take without those arms, as the source of the attacks is the arms, not the effect granting the Claws.

Which is why I specified Weapon attacks. Can a Kasatha pick up 4 shortswords and swing them all at their opponent at level 1.


Hard to say for sure, since it all ties into the infamous "Metaphorical Hands of Effort" FAQ.


The way I handle the whole extra arms thing is that having natural arms, like being a Kasatha does indeed give you the four attacks, and if your GM allows the race, more power to them.

But the alchemist discovery I consider to be Artifical Arms and they don't give you extra attacks because your brain isn't properly programmed to handle the extra arms and your main arms at the same time.


Which is why I specified Weapon attacks. Can a Kasatha pick up 4 shortswords and swing them all at their opponent at level 1.
The answer is yes. I'd suggest Multi weapon fighting to offset the penalties. People of the Stars talked a bit more of The Kasatha and introduce a double Bow wielder Ranger Archtype. It talked about them using two weapon fighting to offset the penalties for using two bows.
Our group have looked at the rules and decided that for a Kasatha he needs Muti weapon fighting then takes Improved Two Weapon Fighting and then Greater Two weapon fighting to utilize all four of his hands.
We have done this on two occasions and have found while they make devastating melee fighters they don't overpower another well built character. The only real issue we have had is buying magic weapons for him to use in all his hands start to add up painfully quick. Ten Grand for four +1 magic shortswords.


Talonhawke wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:

As a break off of this thread I am making a thread for dicussion and hopefully if enough clicks are gained a definitive answer to the question, can a creature with extra arms make weapon attacks with all of them without using iterative attacks.

The dicussion stems from the fact that no rule specificlly allows more than 2 attacks a around without iterative attacks.

We see several creatures in the bestiary who use x attacks where x is the number of arms in a full attack in the way described above without a special ruling to allow it. We also see some with extra arms who only use 2 in their written attack sequences.

We also see Vestigal Arms which grants arms but gives a specific rule disallowing extra attacks lending to the position that by default extra arms means extra attacks.

Having Arms doesn't always mean you gain more attacks. It allows you to take more attacks, assuming you have an available means to attack with those arms, such as by being given an effect that provides Claws. So if I were a Kasatha with both Beast Totem Rage and Feral Mutagen, I could make 4 Claw Attacks without problem.

Note, however, that the FAQ regarding Vestigial Arms states that even if you provide an effect which grants attacks to the Vestigial Arms (such as the Feral Mutagen, which gives 2 Claws that can be put on those arms, granting them attacks), you cannot take those attacks in addition to the ones you would be able to take without those arms, as the source of the attacks is the arms, not the effect granting the Claws.

Which is why I specified Weapon attacks. Can a Kasatha pick up 4 shortswords and swing them all at their opponent at level 1.

Any subject which grants the arm the ability to attack works, assuming it's not a Vestigial Arm. Again, those get the green card.

That being said, there are multiple means to attack. If you're 1st level, you only get 1 attack, per your BAB. This means if you're armed with 4 Shortswords (let's up the ante, make it 4 Kukris), you can make a single attack with any of those, at no penalties. You can also perform the TWF action, which allows you to make a single Primary attack, and then additional Off-Hand attacks for every attack you possess.

This ruling is enforced by the Normal text of the MWF feat that you are otherwise exclusivised to take.

Multiweapon Fighting (Normal) wrote:
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.

That being said, the Feat benefits don't add up to what the TWF feat provides; that is, the TWF feat makes all penalties a -4, whereas the MWF feat makes your Primary a -2, and all your Off-Hands a -6. It also doesn't denote that you reduce the penalties further if all of your Off-Hands are Light, meaning I suppose you could upgrade the weaponry to Scimitars or Rapiers instead.

Whether those penalties are intended or not, I don't know, but them's the breaks.


It seems to me that the whole point is for MWF to operate exactly like the TWF feat operates, with all attendant rules (like light off-hand weapons being relevant), it just does so for more than one extra attack. I believe that's the purpose behind the "See TWF" line. They aren't going to write out every aspect of the TWF rule in the MWF Normal line (just like they don't with the TWF feat). But they direct you where to look to figure it out.

So if all your off-hand weapon attacks use a light weapon, -2. But if even one of them is not a light weapon, -4.


Also just to clarify, the benefits of the two feats regarding penalty reductions is precisely the same. So I'm not sure what you meant at the end there, Darksol.

Two-Weapon Fighting wrote:
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.
Multiweapon Fighting wrote:
Benefit: Penalties for fighting with multiple weapons are reduced by –2 with the primary hand and by –6 with off hands.


fretgod99 wrote:

Also just to clarify, the benefits of the two feats regarding penalty reductions is precisely the same. So I'm not sure what you meant at the end there, Darksol.

Two-Weapon Fighting wrote:
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.
Multiweapon Fighting wrote:
Benefit: Penalties for fighting with multiple weapons are reduced by –2 with the primary hand and by –6 with off hands.

My mistake, I thought it was stating that your Main-Hands are at BAB-2, and your Off-Hands are at BAB-6.

So that would put it at -4 across the board. Fair enough.

There's still nothing to denote light weapon reductions. It's not unreasonable for it to be ruled that the Light Weapon clause would still apply, but because it's not specifically mentioned, some GMs may rule you're suffering -4 regardless of weapon choice. To that end, I'll say expect table variance.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
There's still nothing to denote light weapon reductions. It's not unreasonable for it to be ruled that the Light Weapon clause would still apply, but because it's not specifically mentioned, some GMs may rule you're suffering -4 regardless of weapon choice. To that end, I'll say expect table variance.

Absolutely. Whenever I post in these threads, I make it abundantly clear that any player should expect a heavy dose of table variation because, like you said, the rules aren't explicit on a lot of the intricacies. So bottom line is make sure you're on board with your GM before getting devoted to the character concept. That's true regardless of character, really, but particularly when you're playing in a bit of a grey area in the rules.


Quote:
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.

The bolded part is likely referring to two weapon fighting as described in the combat chapter and not to the feat of the same name.

Quote:

Two-Weapon Fighting

If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways. First, if your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light. Second, the Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6.

Table: Two-weapon Fighting Penalties summarizes the interaction of all these factors.

Liberty's Edge

There are really a series of questions around this issue;

Q: Can creatures with more than two arms use the normal TWF rules and feats?
A: Yes. This is normal application of existing rules... some hands just don't get used for attacks. Metweska from AP 90 is an example of this.

Q: When a creature with more than two arms uses TWF can they vary which hand is treated as the 'off-hand'?
A: Probably. No clear ruling, but seems a logical extension of the rules allowing any arm to be used for regular (i.e. not additional) attacks.

Q: When a creature with more than two arms uses TWF can they take their iterative attacks with more than two arms?
A: Probably. No clear ruling, but seems a logical extension of the TWF rules allowing iterative attacks with any arm.

Q: Can creatures with more than two arms make weapon attacks with each arm?
A: Yes. The 'Normal' condition of the Multiweapon Fighting feat states that this is the case and lists the penalties for doing so.

Q: Can a PC take the Multiweapon Fighting feat if they meet the listed pre-reqs?
A: Yes.

Q: Do multiweapon fighting penalties get reduced by 2 if all off-hand weapons are light?
A: Probably. No clear ruling, but the wording of the Multiweapon Fighting feat seems to imply that provisions of the Two-Weapon Fighting rules also apply.

Q: Can the MWF feat be used to meet pre-reqs requiring the TWF feat?
A: Possibly. The 'Special' condition of MWF states that it "replaces" TWF. Also, the feat provides exactly the same benefits as TWF for a character using weapons in two arms.

Q: How does MWF 'stack' with the TWF feat chain?
A: Unclear. Common interpretations include;
1: No stacking. If you have both MWF and ITWF/GTWF (possibly requiring TWF as a pre-req if MWF doesn't cover it) you can use one set of attacks or the other, not a combination of the two.
2: Additive. You get the MWF benefit of one additional attack with each off-hand PLUS the ITWF/GTWF benefits of iterative attacks with ONE off-hand.
3: Multiplicative. You get ITWF/GTWF iterative attacks with EACH off-hand.

Q: How do various other feats with TWF as a pre-req (e.g. Double Slice or Two-Weapon Rend) interact with MWF?
A: Unclear. The common interpretations are similar to those for ITWF/GTWF above (e.g. Double Slice may apply to no MWF off-hand attacks, one off-hand attack, or all off-hand attacks) and also may vary by feat.

Any other salient multi-arm weapon fighting issues? Rules text behind any of the 'Yes' answers in dispute? Any of the non-committal answers which should be 'Yes' due to clear rulings?


CBDunkerson wrote:

There are really a series of questions around this issue;

Q: Can creatures with more than two arms make weapon attacks with each arm?
A: Yes. The 'Normal' condition of the Multiweapon Fighting feat states that this is the case and lists the penalties for doing so.

Again, this is untrue by RAW. You are assuming the existence of a nonexistent rule. The normal condition of MWF in no way grants attacks, it only adjudicates the attack penalties of attacks from another source. Compare it to the normal TWF feat text, which references the TWF combat rule which is the source of the attack.


@ CBDunkerson

1. I don't think they can take feats like Improved TWF, Greater TWF, Double Slice, et. al., as Multiweapon Fighting specifically states it replaces TWF as a feat choice. This means that a GM can rule they can't take the follow-up TWF feats because they don't meet the feat pre-requisites, and it's not unreasonable, since Multiweapon Fighting doesn't say it counts as the TWF feat for meeting pre-requisites.

If you were a Kasatha Ranger with the Two-Weapon Fighting (or Weapon and Shield) style(s), then you could get away with it because you can explicitly choose those feats (without meeting the pre-requisites), or even just outright take the TWF feat, though that too can be disregarded since it can be ruled that Multiweapon Fighting replaces that (which means you already possess the feat and can't choose it again).

2. When they declare they are using TWF (or MWF), they declare which weapon is the Primary, and then declare what other weapons are Off-Hand; or to be more precise, once they declare what's a Primary, whatever isn't declared as Primary becomes Off-Hand. This gets shaky if you try to use Unarmed Strikes in conjunction, but that's how I'd see it ran. This is mentioned in the FAQ regarding TWF in the Core.

3. If we were to follow the FAQ regarding TWF with a Two-Handed Weapon and Armor Spikes, if the damage bonus from your statistical modifier goes over the standard (that is, 4 arms = 2.5x modifier), it wouldn't be allowed. So if you were going to use 2 Nodachis to TWF, it would not work, as you would hit 3x Strength modifier, though if you were to use a Nodachi and 2 Scimitars, it would work (as the statistical modifiers still equal 2.5x modifier).

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Calth wrote:
You are assuming the existence of a nonexistent rule. The normal condition of MWF in no way grants attacks, it only adjudicates the attack penalties of attacks from another source. Compare it to the normal TWF feat text, which references the TWF combat rule which is the source of the attack.

Correct me if I'm understanding you wrong, but you seem to be claiming that the 'Normal' condition of the MWF feat isn't saying that you CAN make attacks with all of your off hands, but rather only that the penalty for doing so is -10... and there is, in fact, no way to actually make such attacks.

If so, I'll just say that this interpretation seems, to me, highly strained and clearly incorrect. Why even list the penalty if there is no way to incur it? At that... what does the feat even DO if you can't make attacks with those hands to begin with? And before you say, 'the feat just reduces the penalties'... yes, but the penalties it reduces are for "attacks made with all of its [the creature's] off hands" - which you seem to be saying there is no way to do.

In any case, every single creature wielding three or more weapons in every bestiary (and AP/module/other) entry follows the rule stated in the MWF 'normal' condition as I have read it.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Calth wrote:
You are assuming the existence of a nonexistent rule. The normal condition of MWF in no way grants attacks, it only adjudicates the attack penalties of attacks from another source. Compare it to the normal TWF feat text, which references the TWF combat rule which is the source of the attack.

Correct me if I'm understanding you wrong, but you seem to be claiming that the 'Normal' condition of the MWF feat isn't saying that you CAN make attacks with all of your off hands, but rather only that the penalty for doing so is -10... and there is, in fact, no way to actually make such attacks.

If so, I'll just say that this interpretation seems, to me, highly strained and clearly incorrect. Why even list the penalty if there is no way to incur it? At that... what does the feat even DO if you can't make attacks with those hands to begin with? And before you say, 'the feat just reduces the penalties'... yes, but the penalties it reduces are for "attacks made with all of its [the creature's] off hands" - which you seem to be saying there is no way to do.

In any case, every single creature wielding three or more weapons in every bestiary (and AP/module/other) entry follows the rule stated in the MWF 'normal' condition as I have read it.

You are assuming the normal text of MWF grants attacks. It does not, the creature must have some other way of gaining the attacks that the MWF feat applies to. (For example, the TWF feat modifies the attack granted by the TWF combat rule of the CRB) Bestiary creatures, by virtue of their statblock, can make those attacks, so they benefit from MWF. PCs have no way of gaining those attacks, so they cannot. There is a reason it is a bestiary feat.


People of the Stars talks about the Kasatha. Now them being Monks is a waste they don't get the full use out of their lower arms. They are in fact treated as if they only had two arms as far as being a Monk goes.
The in fact have a Ranger archtype that uses two bows. They state a Kasatha can use Two weapon feats to reduce the minuses for using two They state they have a primary hand and the rest are offhand. Now our group has made it to where MultiWeapon Fighting acts in all ways as the first tier of Two Weapon fighting allowing them to take feats requiring Two Weapon fighting. When they attack they attack using all four of their arms at penalty just like anyone else using two weapons.
I have in fact played two with my GM allowing me to utilize the rules I have stated. The only issue we had was trying to purchase four magic weapons, one for each hand. Ten grand for four +1 short swords.
Now I think Pazio meant for this race to be played as we played it.


Calth wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Calth wrote:
You are assuming the existence of a nonexistent rule. The normal condition of MWF in no way grants attacks, it only adjudicates the attack penalties of attacks from another source. Compare it to the normal TWF feat text, which references the TWF combat rule which is the source of the attack.

Correct me if I'm understanding you wrong, but you seem to be claiming that the 'Normal' condition of the MWF feat isn't saying that you CAN make attacks with all of your off hands, but rather only that the penalty for doing so is -10... and there is, in fact, no way to actually make such attacks.

If so, I'll just say that this interpretation seems, to me, highly strained and clearly incorrect. Why even list the penalty if there is no way to incur it? At that... what does the feat even DO if you can't make attacks with those hands to begin with? And before you say, 'the feat just reduces the penalties'... yes, but the penalties it reduces are for "attacks made with all of its [the creature's] off hands" - which you seem to be saying there is no way to do.

In any case, every single creature wielding three or more weapons in every bestiary (and AP/module/other) entry follows the rule stated in the MWF 'normal' condition as I have read it.

You are assuming the normal text of MWF grants attacks. It does not, the creature must have some other way of gaining the attacks that the MWF feat applies to. (For example, the TWF feat modifies the attack granted by the TWF combat rule of the CRB) Bestiary creatures, by virtue of their statblock, can make those attacks, so they benefit from MWF. PCs have no way of gaining those attacks, so they cannot. There is a reason it is a bestiary feat.

then why state "Most of the following feats apply specifically to monsters, although some player characters might qualify for them (particularly Craft Construct)? If a feat doesn't DO anything for a PC, why say they can qualify for it? Or for than matter, why even have the feat if you planned to ignore what it says and just make it up as you go?

"the creature must have some other way of gaining the attacks that the MWF feat applies to": Wouldn't that be in the prerequisites? Looks like "three or more hands". Secondly, why word the vestigial hand FAQ like it was? Why not just state what you said here, that a hand must explicitly grant an extra attack and not that THIS ability doesn't grant them?

Secondly, offhands only exist in tw/multi weapon fighting. What is the point of saying "all the others are off hands"? Wouldn't it instead say "All others can act as an off hand" or something similar if how you think it read was correct?


Calth wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Calth wrote:
You are assuming the existence of a nonexistent rule. The normal condition of MWF in no way grants attacks, it only adjudicates the attack penalties of attacks from another source. Compare it to the normal TWF feat text, which references the TWF combat rule which is the source of the attack.

Correct me if I'm understanding you wrong, but you seem to be claiming that the 'Normal' condition of the MWF feat isn't saying that you CAN make attacks with all of your off hands, but rather only that the penalty for doing so is -10... and there is, in fact, no way to actually make such attacks.

If so, I'll just say that this interpretation seems, to me, highly strained and clearly incorrect. Why even list the penalty if there is no way to incur it? At that... what does the feat even DO if you can't make attacks with those hands to begin with? And before you say, 'the feat just reduces the penalties'... yes, but the penalties it reduces are for "attacks made with all of its [the creature's] off hands" - which you seem to be saying there is no way to do.

In any case, every single creature wielding three or more weapons in every bestiary (and AP/module/other) entry follows the rule stated in the MWF 'normal' condition as I have read it.

You are assuming the normal text of MWF grants attacks. It does not, the creature must have some other way of gaining the attacks that the MWF feat applies to. (For example, the TWF feat modifies the attack granted by the TWF combat rule of the CRB) Bestiary creatures, by virtue of their statblock, can make those attacks, so they benefit from MWF. PCs have no way of gaining those attacks, so they cannot. There is a reason it is a bestiary feat.

Nothing about bestiary creatures inherently breaks the rules. They follow the same permissive ruleset as everything else in the game. Now they can have access to abilities that aren't availble to anything outside their race, but again those are spelled out. Why bother spelling out special if the creature can just have the ability? A 6 armed monster gets to make 5 off-hand attacks because it has 6 arms not because some designer wrote it in the stat block.


Derek Dalton wrote:

People of the Stars talks about the Kasatha. Now them being Monks is a waste they don't get the full use out of their lower arms. They are in fact treated as if they only had two arms as far as being a Monk goes.

The in fact have a Ranger archtype that uses two bows. They state a Kasatha can use Two weapon feats to reduce the minuses for using two They state they have a primary hand and the rest are offhand. Now our group has made it to where MultiWeapon Fighting acts in all ways as the first tier of Two Weapon fighting allowing them to take feats requiring Two Weapon fighting. When they attack they attack using all four of their arms at penalty just like anyone else using two weapons.
I have in fact played two with my GM allowing me to utilize the rules I have stated. The only issue we had was trying to purchase four magic weapons, one for each hand. Ten grand for four +1 short swords.
Now I think Pazio meant for this race to be played as we played it.

The monk part is because the monks flurry has the attacks baked in and only works 'like' TWF. As such, they would lose out on those extra arms. In essence, a monks flurry doesn't have offhands for better or worse.


You are assuming the normal text of MWF grants attacks. It does not, the creature must have some other way of gaining the attacks that the MWF feat applies to. (For example, the TWF feat modifies the attack granted by the TWF combat rule of the CRB) Bestiary creatures, by virtue of their statblock, can make those attacks, so they benefit from MWF. PCs have no way of gaining those attacks, so they cannot. There is a reason it is a bestiary feat.

then why state "Most of the following feats apply specifically to monsters, although some player characters might qualify for them (particularly Craft Construct)? If a feat doesn't DO anything for a PC, why say they can qualify for it? Or for than matter.

Most races and classes don't offer players a second set of hands. Now the Alchemist, and Aegis both do and The Kasatha as a race offer a second set. Now in the case of The Alchemist his second set of arms can't be used like a full second set of arms. The description is very clear about that. The Aegis a 3rd party class can get a set of arms like the Alchemist Vestigle set of arms or at higher levels get a full set of working arms. Both Kasatha and the Aegis at mid level have a working set of second arms that function like their primary arms. In those cases Multi Weapon Fighting is really what they want over Two Weapon fighting because the feat applies for multi armed creatures.
This is another case of Pazio editing. The intent is for MWP to stand in for TWP and the rest of that tree. Our group has ruled that. However it is unclear enough for other groups to say no.


graystone wrote:

then why state "Most of the following feats apply specifically to monsters, although some player characters might qualify for them (particularly Craft Construct)? If a feat doesn't DO anything for a PC, why say they can qualify for it? Or for than matter, why even have the feat if you planned to ignore what it says and just make it up as you go?

"the creature must have some other way of gaining the attacks that the MWF feat applies to": Wouldn't that be in the prerequisites? Looks like "three or more hands". Secondly, why word the vestigial hand FAQ like it was? Why not just state what you said here, that a hand must explicitly grant an extra attack and not that THIS ability doesn't grant them?

Secondly, offhands only exist in tw/multi weapon fighting. What is the point of saying "all the others are off hands"? Wouldn't it instead say "All others can act as an off hand" or something similar if how you think it read was correct?

"Some PCs might qualify for them" doesn't mean PCs can use all of them

PCs can qualify for plenty of feats that are useless. A fighter can take Spell Focus, doesn't mean they can use it.

Primary/Off-hand governs the amount of damage done with an attack made with that hand, not the number of attacks you make.

Off-Hand Weapon: When you deal damage with a weapon in your off hand, you add only 1/2 your Strength bonus. If you have a Strength penalty, the entire penalty applies.

The TWF combat rule allows the use of one off-hand weapon to make an additional attack. It does not allow the use of all off-hands to make attacks.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Talonhawke wrote:
Calth wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Calth wrote:
You are assuming the existence of a nonexistent rule. The normal condition of MWF in no way grants attacks, it only adjudicates the attack penalties of attacks from another source. Compare it to the normal TWF feat text, which references the TWF combat rule which is the source of the attack.

Correct me if I'm understanding you wrong, but you seem to be claiming that the 'Normal' condition of the MWF feat isn't saying that you CAN make attacks with all of your off hands, but rather only that the penalty for doing so is -10... and there is, in fact, no way to actually make such attacks.

If so, I'll just say that this interpretation seems, to me, highly strained and clearly incorrect. Why even list the penalty if there is no way to incur it? At that... what does the feat even DO if you can't make attacks with those hands to begin with? And before you say, 'the feat just reduces the penalties'... yes, but the penalties it reduces are for "attacks made with all of its [the creature's] off hands" - which you seem to be saying there is no way to do.

In any case, every single creature wielding three or more weapons in every bestiary (and AP/module/other) entry follows the rule stated in the MWF 'normal' condition as I have read it.

You are assuming the normal text of MWF grants attacks. It does not, the creature must have some other way of gaining the attacks that the MWF feat applies to. (For example, the TWF feat modifies the attack granted by the TWF combat rule of the CRB) Bestiary creatures, by virtue of their statblock, can make those attacks, so they benefit from MWF. PCs have no way of gaining those attacks, so they cannot. There is a reason it is a bestiary feat.
Nothing about bestiary creatures inherently breaks the rules. They follow the same permissive ruleset as everything else in the game. Now they can have access to abilities that aren't availble to anything outside their race, but again those are...

Incorrect, bestiary creatures explicitly from designer commentary and the design contests are allowed to break rules that PCs must follow.

Liberty's Edge

Calth wrote:
The TWF combat rule allows the use of one off-hand weapon to make an additional attack. It does not allow the use of all off-hands to make attacks.

However, the MWF combat rule, as stated in the 'Normal' condition of the MWF feat, DOES allow the use of all off hands to make attacks.

They are exact parallels.


Calth wrote:
Incorrect, bestiary creatures explicitly from designer commentary and the design contests are allowed to break rules that PCs must follow.

Can you actually back that up? Or are you just gonna throw out "the Designers said so" and leave it. Instead of telling everyone why they are wrong show them where or on top of that give an example of such a creature breaking a rule that can't be implied.

EDIT: Added quote


Calth wrote:
graystone wrote:

then why state "Most of the following feats apply specifically to monsters, although some player characters might qualify for them (particularly Craft Construct)? If a feat doesn't DO anything for a PC, why say they can qualify for it? Or for than matter, why even have the feat if you planned to ignore what it says and just make it up as you go?

"the creature must have some other way of gaining the attacks that the MWF feat applies to": Wouldn't that be in the prerequisites? Looks like "three or more hands". Secondly, why word the vestigial hand FAQ like it was? Why not just state what you said here, that a hand must explicitly grant an extra attack and not that THIS ability doesn't grant them?

Secondly, offhands only exist in tw/multi weapon fighting. What is the point of saying "all the others are off hands"? Wouldn't it instead say "All others can act as an off hand" or something similar if how you think it read was correct?

"Some PCs might qualify for them" doesn't mean PCs can use all of them

PCs can qualify for plenty of feats that are useless. A fighter can take Spell Focus, doesn't mean they can use it.

Primary/Off-hand governs the amount of damage done with an attack made with that hand, not the number of attacks you make.

Off-Hand Weapon: When you deal damage with a weapon in your off hand, you add only 1/2 your Strength bonus. If you have a Strength penalty, the entire penalty applies.

The TWF combat rule allows the use of one off-hand weapon to make an additional attack. It does not allow the use of all off-hands to make attacks.

When can you make an offhand attack is you aren't in TWF/multi-weapon fighting? You are correct that it govern damage but it's damage IN TWF. In non-TWF/MWF there is no offhand or offhand attacks.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Calth wrote:
The TWF combat rule allows the use of one off-hand weapon to make an additional attack. It does not allow the use of all off-hands to make attacks.

However, the MWF combat rule, as stated in the 'Normal' condition of the MWF feat, DOES allow the use of all off hands to make attacks.

They are exact parallels.

No, they are not. The MWF feat literally cuts out the part of the TWF feat that references the rule that grants the attack.

Talonhawke wrote:
Can you actually back that up? Or are you just gonna throw out "the Designers said so" and leave it. Instead of telling everyone why they are wrong show them where or on top of that give an example of such a creature breaking a rule that can't be implied.

here

graystone wrote:
When can you make an offhand attack is you aren't in TWF/multi-weapon fighting? You are correct that it govern damage but it's damage IN TWF. In non-TWF/MWF there is no offhand or offhand attacks.

Irrelevant. Primary/Off-hand is a damage designation, nothing more, nothing less. Nothing in the existence of an off-hand grants an attack.

Liberty's Edge

Calth wrote:
Bestiary creatures, by virtue of their statblock, can make those attacks, so they benefit from MWF. PCs have no way of gaining those attacks, so they cannot.

AP #85 page 26

Kasatha skeletons: 4 claws +1 (1d4+1)

How is a Kasatha getting four attacks? Or rather, why is this possible for NPC Kasatha, but not PC Kasatha?

Quote:
There is a reason it is a bestiary feat.

Yes, because when the first Bestiary was published there was no way for a PC to have three or more arms. Now there is. Which is why the Bestiary feat section says that some PCs may qualify.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Calth wrote:
Bestiary creatures, by virtue of their statblock, can make those attacks, so they benefit from MWF. PCs have no way of gaining those attacks, so they cannot.

AP #85 page 26

Kasatha skeletons: 4 claws +1 (1d4+1)

How is a Kasatha getting four attacks? Or rather, why is this possible for NPC Kasatha, but not PC Kasatha?

Quote:
There is a reason it is a bestiary feat.
Yes, because when the first Bestiary was published there was no way for a PC to have three or more arms. Now there is. Which is why the Bestiary feat section says that some PCs may qualify.

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.

Yes, PCs can take bestiary feats, it doesn't mean that all bestiary feats are useful for PCs. Feats can be useless for characters that qualify but cannot utilize them. MWF is an example of this.


Calth wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Calth wrote:
The TWF combat rule allows the use of one off-hand weapon to make an additional attack. It does not allow the use of all off-hands to make attacks.

However, the MWF combat rule, as stated in the 'Normal' condition of the MWF feat, DOES allow the use of all off hands to make attacks.

They are exact parallels.

No, they are not. The MWF feat literally cuts out the part of the TWF feat that references the rule that grants the attack.

Talonhawke wrote:
Can you actually back that up? Or are you just gonna throw out "the Designers said so" and leave it. Instead of telling everyone why they are wrong show them where or on top of that give an example of such a creature breaking a rule that can't be implied.

here

graystone wrote:
When can you make an offhand attack is you aren't in TWF/multi-weapon fighting? You are correct that it govern damage but it's damage IN TWF. In non-TWF/MWF there is no offhand or offhand attacks.
Irrelevant. Primary/Off-hand is a damage designation, nothing more, nothing less. Nothing in the existence of an off-hand grants an attack.

#1 it doesn't cut it off, it says see the combat section for TWF.

#2 A good old unofficial post...

#3 this is chicken and egg. you can't have an offhand without TWF. you can't have multiple offhands unless you make multiple offhand attacks. The mere existence of multiple offhands proves multiple extra attacks or they wouldn't be offhands. For it to read as you say, it would read "the rest of the hands may be used as your offhand."


Nothing there says monsters just do what they want willy-nilly what it does say is that monsters aren't built by some magic chart, he even gets into what I was talking about if a monster does something that isn't standard in the game, like sundering hyrda heads, its called out in the creature entry not just plugged into the stats with no explanation.

Liberty's Edge

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?


Talonhawke wrote:
Nothing there says monsters just do what they want willy-nilly what it does say is that monsters aren't built by some magic chart, he even gets into what I was talking about if a monster does something that isn't standard in the game, like sundering hyrda heads, its called out in the creature entry not just plugged into the stats with no explanation.

You mean called out in the statblock, like the attacks of multiarmed creatures?


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?

he's actually correct on this. A lizard man can make 3 natural attacks even though it only has 1 offhand. Natural attacks really are their own thing.


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?

Yes, just like a PC who TWFs with a bootblade and armor spikes loses the ability to punch.


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.


graystone wrote:

1 it doesn't cut it off, it says see the combat section for TWF.

#2 A good old unofficial post...

#3 this is chicken and egg. you can't have an offhand without TWF. you can't have multiple offhands unless you make multiple offhand attacks. The mere existence of multiple offhands proves multiple extra attacks or they wouldn't be offhands. For it to read as you say, it would read "the rest of the hands may be used as your offhand."

1.) And the TWF combat section says nothing about MWF

2.) He wanted a design post, I gave him a design post. And that is actually an official post, since its not a rules question, he is explaining how to design a monster for the contest. So the bestiary design contest literally has instructions that you don't have to follow the normal rules.

3.) You can have an off-hand without TWF. TWFing is just a means of utilizing an off-hand weapon. An off-hand is not dependent on TWF, TWF is dependent on an off-hand.

Liberty's Edge

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.


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

Liberty's Edge

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.

1 to 50 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.