| 52 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would you find an official blog post on how the rules around TWF, multi-weapon fighting, non-handed weapons, non-handed weapons, iterative attacks with different weapons (is that TWF but without penalties?) and extra armed creatures are meant to interact helpful?
Having trawled through the last 1500 posts in the rules forum and then done a search on the 'Armor Spikes FAQ' and gone back through the last 10 pages ordered by date it seems there is still a lot of disparity of opinion. There are multiple FAQs on the related subjects which can interact in conflicting ways, several developer comments and a lot of discord with the discussion ending in deleted posts.
In total I found 34 threads with a total of 2,437 posts and 107 FAQ requests excluding two meta threads.
For reference the thread trawl found:
Does having extra arms grant extra off hand attacks. 84 Posts (and counting) 13 FAQs
'Hands', Two Weapon Fighting and Unarmed Strikes 9 Posts 0 FAQs
Flurry of blows + 2 handed weapon = 1 attack a round, and other problems. 8 Posts 0 FAQs
"Free Hand" and Improved Unarmed Strike. 18 Posts 0 FAQs
Kasatha grapple questions. 3 Posts 0 FAQs
Multiweapon fighting 39 Posts 0 FAQs
Unarmed attacks while holding a weapon? 26 Posts 0 FAQs
Two Handed-Fighting Question 5 Posts 1 FAQ
Multiweapon Fighting, 2-Weapon Fighting, and Off-Hand Attacks... 2 Posts 0 FAQs
Monsters with a melee touch attack: can use two-weapon fighting? 41 Posts 1 FAQ
Slam Attacks and Hands 20 Posts 6 FAQs
Two weapon fighting using four arms. 7 Posts 0 FAQs
Can you legally TWF with 2 lances while mounted?168 Posts 2 FAQs
Claws and their redundancy(or lack of)? 73 Posts 5 FAQs
Whirlwind Attack questions 29 Posts 1 FAQ
Multiweapon Fighting (Combat Feat) 152 Posts 4 FAQs
Search for 'Armor Spikes FAQ' found:
Do armor spikes count as being wielded? 4 Posts 0 FAQs
Multiweapon Fighting (Combat) and a 4-armed Eidolon 38 Posts 0 FAQs
Order of using attacks when full-attack? 49 Posts 1 FAQ
Off-Hand? 24 Posts 0 FAQs
Monk threatening while armed 12 Posts 0 FAQs
two-weapon fighting armor spikes 3 Posts 0 FAQs
Two weapon fighting and natural attacks 16 Posts 0 FAQs
Some questions about Armor spikes 9 Posts 0 FAQs
Armor Spike and Reach Weapon > Threaten 5 and 10 feet? 172 Posts 0 FAQs
Petition to Change / Clarify the Armor Spikes FAQ 147 Posts 28 FAQs
TWF w / Weapon and Armor Spikes while wielding a Shield 494 Posts 13 FAQs
Question about Wielding a Guisarme and a Cestus! 11 Posts 0 FAQs
Kasatha, TWF, and 2 handers 105 Posts 17 FAQs
Elven Curve Blade + Unarmed Strike 54 Posts 0 FAQs
Off Hand Longbows 352 Posts 18 FAQs
Two-Handed Attacks or TWF and Shield Bonuses 90 Posts 20 FAQs
Do you threaten at both 5' and 10' when using a reach weapon with a Brawler / Monk? 127 Posts 1 FAQ
TWFing a two handed weapon and kicks? 46 Posts 0 FAQs
Excluded meta-threads
2016, what are the big unanswered rules questions? 152 Posts 8 FAQs
FAQ: Does the word 'hand' equate to a weapon slot in game mechanics? 4 Posts 3 FAQs
PS It was a wet and miserable Sunday
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If it keeps the majority of the angry comments on these subjects on the forums, impotently directed at official decisions, instead of between people trying to resolve how to run the game (in particular in settings that want to keep to 'official' rules to avoid discord in the first place), then...
Since my last post a week ago we have had another 7 threads, and two ongoing threads with a total of 182 posts and 4 FAQs added since the last count. The running total is now 2619 Posts and 111 FAQs. We also have a new meta-thread aiming to to resolve several FAQs which have had no official answer.
Order of using attacks when full-attack? +2 Posts
Order of Attacks: TWF + Natural Attacks w / Multiattack Feat 17 Posts
How do natural attacks combine with weapon attacks? 11 Posts
Multiweapon fighting and Improved Two Weapon Fighting 3 Posts
Monk + "in-hand weapons" = unarmed strike? 7 Posts
Quickdraw shield and two handed weapon 17 Posts
Does having extra arms grant extra off hand attacks. +24 Posts +3 FAQs
Two weapon fighting + natural attacks 4 Posts
Multiweapon fighting path 97 Posts 1 FAQ (this thread was missed last week)
Meta Thread
Democratic Unofficial FAQs
I agree with you that the metaphysical hands of effort is too big a topic for a targeted FAQ and as it is an evolved concept isn't really an errata either.
Perhaps Paizo could treat the core rules in the same way modern computer operating systems are going and rather than changing editions, they release regular updates as issues are found.
12 angry men does not a burning rules question make.
Another week or so and another 4 new threads and two ongoing threads, 120 Posts and 5 FAQs bringing the running total to 2739 Posts and 116 Posts
Crane wing and 2 handed fighting. 23 Posts 0 FAQs
Multiweapon fighting path +65 Posts +2 FAQs
Does having extra arms grant extra off hand attacks. +14 Posts +3 FAQs
Threatened Space & Wielding Two Weapons versus Attacking with Two Weapons 5 Posts 0 FAQs
Can anyone kick? 13 Posts 0 FAQs
I think this does need to be resolved. Many multi-handed monsters get a special ability to ignore the penalties, but the PC race with multiple arms does not get a free pass. I think we should FAQ this post to draw attention to all the other post. :)
I will go first.
The whole debate about the Two Weapon/Multi weapon issue is concerning "unwritten rules" that some want to fling aside. 1.5 str max stat damage, only ever one main hand, and so on...
The 1.5 STR limit was referenced in regard to standard PC races. Kasatha isn't a standard PC race. There's no reason to think that they are limited by the same "one main hand one off-hand" issue relevant to humans or dwarves because, quite literally, they have more hands.
This does not need resolution. This has had resolution and people keep prying at it in the quest to get more attacks.
If something has multiple hands its a monster being run by the DM. That makes "how does this work" up to the person running it.
|
This does not need resolution. This has had resolution and people keep prying at it in the quest to get more attacks.
If something has multiple hands its a monster being run by the DM. That makes "how does this work" up to the person running it.
Elaborate, because that statement is clearly false otherwise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This does not need resolution. This has had resolution and people keep prying at it in the quest to get more attacks.
If something has multiple hands its a monster being run by the DM. That makes "how does this work" up to the person running it.
*looks at Kasathas PC entry* *looks at BigNorseWolf's post*
So making a Kasathas race trait, alternate racial trait and Racial Heritages stat write-up where mistakes? There was only meant to be the monster entry and all the other stuff is a error? The Monstrous Physique spells don't exist or can't change you into 4 armed creatures? The alter self spell can't change you into a 4 armed humanoid?
It's a pretty big lie to say "If something has multiple hands its a monster being run by the DM."
It's a pretty big lie to say "If something has multiple hands its a monster being run by the DM."
Or someone hasn't heard of the kasathas yet?
Ask before you accuse people of lying.
Elaborate, because that statement is clearly false otherwise.This does not need resolution. This has had resolution and people keep prying at it in the quest to get more attacks.
If something has multiple hands its a monster being run by the DM. That makes "how does this work" up to the person running it.
Look at every post in the links. Its people trying to gain more attacks out of the system than the system allows, even when developers have said "no you can't get more attacks out of this" and half the abilities state "you can't get more attacks out of this"
BigNorseWolf: "If something has multiple hands its a monster being run by the DM."
Assuming you haven't heard of kasathas, I don't believe it but lets play that game, have you heard of Goliath Druid and their ability to change into giants, one of which is a 3 armed Athach? The alter self/Monstrous Physique spells that can change a PC into a multi-armed creature? Undead Anatomy and the Four-Armed Mudra Skeleton?
You've been around the block/site BigNorseWolf, and there are FAR too many ways for a PC to have multiple limbs for you not to know of all of them. There is no way that someone that has more than a passing knowledge of the game should have missed them. So I'll stand by my statement. It was a lie and you should have known it was.
And just to be clear, even if you unknowingly say something false, it's still a lie. There is nothing wrong with a statement of fact so it really didn't matter if I asked. However, I WILL point out that in the the links posted in the first post there are "Kasatha, TWF, and 2 handers", "Kasatha grapple questions" plus fretgod99 mentioned them so there seems like little reason someone that's read the thread to reply to it without knowing them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This does not need resolution. This has had resolution and people keep prying at it in the quest to get more attacks.
If something has multiple hands its a monster being run by the DM. That makes "how does this work" up to the person running it.
Nobody can agree on how it is run, and there are definitely correct ways to do it. This is not something that Paizo is trying to leave up to the GM. It is just something people don't agree on which is entirely different.
P.S. We know everything is up to thr GM ultimately, but the goal is to,find the official intent.
Nobody can agree on how it is run, and there are definitely correct ways to do it. This is not something that Paizo is trying to leave up to the GM. It is just something people don't agree on which is entirely different.P.S. We know everything is up to thr GM ultimately, but the goal is to,find the official intent.
Then why not start the kasatha's multiarmed trait" work thread? Its not a normal PC race, its likely to not use the normal rules.
We actually know the current rule: no multiweapon fighting for PCs. The question is if this is actually the intent of the design team, or did they unintentionally forget to include a rule that allows MWF for PCs.
We do? I've seen them say the rules where written with two handed people in mind but I've never seen anything saying "no multiweapon fighting for PCs". In fact, I see the opposite.
Monster feats: "Most of the following feats apply specifically to monsters, although some player characters might qualify for them (particularly Craft Construct)." A 4 armed character qualifies for multiweapon fighting so there is a current rule.
If it's vestigial arms you're talking about, then that's a different matter. If it's "hands of effort", well we have no way of knowing the in's and out's of that since it's unwritten. Who knows the intent of something that only exist in the PDT's minds?
Then why not start the kasatha's multiarmed trait" work thread? Its not a normal PC race, its likely to not use the normal rules.
Nobody can agree on how it is run, and there are definitely correct ways to do it. This is not something that Paizo is trying to leave up to the GM. It is just something people don't agree on which is entirely different.P.S. We know everything is up to thr GM ultimately, but the goal is to,find the official intent.
I've given my opinion on it(the multiarmed thing) in several threads. Some agree with me per RAI, but not RAW. Some disagree with me on both accounts. I am about 99.9% sure the devs will rule like I said, but there was enough disagreement that I think Paizo needs to go ahead and clarify it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We actually know the current rule: no multiweapon fighting for PCs. The question is if this is actually the intent of the design team, or did they unintentionally forget to include a rule that allows MWF for PCs.This does not need resolution. This has had resolution and people keep prying at it in the quest to get more attacks.
If something has multiple hands its a monster being run by the DM. That makes "how does this work" up to the person running it.
Nobody can agree on how it is run, and there are definitely correct ways to do it. This is not something that Paizo is trying to leave up to the GM. It is just something people don't agree on which is entirely different.
P.S. We know everything is up to thr GM ultimately, but the goal is to,find the official intent.
Where is that rule located that says "PC's" can't have multiarmed fighting? Maybe the standard PC races can't do it because they don't normally have multiple arms, but those PC races also can't do it as NPC's either. There is no rule saying "build X" can do this as an NPC, but not a PC that I can find.
Then why not start the kasatha's multiarmed trait" work thread? Its not a normal PC race, its likely to not use the normal rules.
Nobody can agree on how it is run, and there are definitely correct ways to do it. This is not something that Paizo is trying to leave up to the GM. It is just something people don't agree on which is entirely different.P.S. We know everything is up to thr GM ultimately, but the goal is to,find the official intent.
If something has multiple hands its a monster being run by the DM. That makes "how does this work" up to the person running it.
It's nice to know eidolons are GM run monsters.....
Are you also planning on making the summoner an NPC if he takes extra limbs as an evolution at 10th level?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And just to be clear, even if you unknowingly say something false, it's still a lie.
You're being disingenuous. True, one definition for the English word "lie" is "a falsehood," but the act of lying requires intent. There's a reason eye witnesses who misidentify a defendant don't get charged with perjury.
To the topic on hand...
Look, there aren't any written rules either way, as can be seen by the numerous threads about this. Both interpretations (that having extra hands does or doesn't grant extra offhand attacks) are equally valid. On one hand, there is substantial implications that this is in fact the case (bestiary entries, the language of the Multiweapon feat, the fact that many of the ways to get extra hands explicitly say "you don't get an extra off hand attack" but some of them don't, etc), but on the other hand, nothing is actually written down about it, either, and so even if that's accurate, it's a rule by implication, not RAW, by definition. (I'm not getting into the Permissive system argument)
But that's not the point. People are wasting an enormous amount of time arguing both sides of this thing, sometimes even with valid arguments. And while you'll never find me saying that just because people are arguing about something, it must be unclear, but in this case, both sides have merit. The PDT needs to step in an clarify this. And it'd be the easiest FAQ ever!
"Do characters gain an extra off hand attack per extra hand they have, simply by virtue of having another hand?"
a) Yes, unless the ability that grants the hand(s) says otherwise
b) No, never
c) Yes, but only weapon or natural attacks that actually utilize those hand(s), and unless the ability that grants the hand(s) says otherwise
|
I agree with you that the metaphysical hands of effort is too big a topic for a targeted FAQ and as it is an evolved concept isn't really an errata either.
The 'hands of effort' rules are not "an evolved concept"... and certainly not errata. They have been built in to the Pathfinder rules since day one.
The armor spike text always said that you can use an off-hand attack to strike with them. Which should have been clear indication that the off-hand was then not available for a separate weapon attack. That was never a 'new' rule. Just one which many people refused to accept until (and even after) the 'armor spikes' FAQ stated that water is indeed wet.
The core rulebook has always had rules stating that the light, one-handed, and two-handed melee weapon classifications represented different amounts of effort and the strength bonuses associated with each of these - further broken down by primary and off hands... which have also always been defined in the Two-Weapon Fighting and Multiweapon Fighting rules.
Which is why every creature stat block in the Bestiaries, APs, modules, and other books Paizo has published conforms with the 'hands of effort' (including Multiweapon Fighting) rules. That isn't an amazing series of coincidences. Rather, the basic rules on this have always been clear enough that all the stat block writers / editors were able to follow them. When every official product consistently applies the rules the same way dozens of times for years it simply isn't reasonable to pretend that 'there is no clear indication how it works'.
That said, there are various complicated corner cases which could use some clarification. For example, the Kasatha Bow Nomad has a special class ability to use two bows at the same time along with the TWF feats... but the Xill in B1 uses two bows without any special ability, and the Xill Matriarch in Occult Bestiary can apply her Improved Two-Weapon Fighting feat to get an extra iterative attack with the 'off hands' bow. So does the Bow Nomad ability not actually DO anything or should the Xill have a special racial ability listed as allowing them to do this?
|
|
This does not need resolution. This has had resolution and people keep prying at it in the quest to get more attacks.
If something has multiple hands its a monster being run by the DM. That makes "how does this work" up to the person running it.
*looks at Kasathas PC entry* *looks at BigNorseWolf's post*
So making a Kasathas race trait, alternate racial trait and Racial Heritages stat write-up where mistakes? There was only meant to be the monster entry and all the other stuff is a error? The Monstrous Physique spells don't exist or can't change you into 4 armed creatures? The alter self spell can't change you into a 4 armed humanoid?
It's a pretty big lie to say "If something has multiple hands its a monster being run by the DM."
I am pretty sure that the Monstrous Physique spells won't give you 4 armed attacks. You still maintain your type.
In addition to these benefits, you gain any of the natural attacks of the base creature, including proficiency in those attacks. These attacks are based on your base attack bonus, modified by your Strength or Dexterity as appropriate, and use your Strength modifier for determining damage bonuses.
Nothing about getting the same armed attacks.
That applies to a goliath druid shapechanging in a Athach or other ways to gain extra hands through Polymorph magic.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am pretty sure that the Monstrous Physique spells won't give you 4 armed attacks.
Well, if we're looking at spells, 'Gift of the Deep' from the Monster Codex has;
"Four-Armed: The sahuagin sprouts an extra pair of arms—which can be used to make claw attacks (dealing 1d4 points of damage), or to wield weapons or hold items. It gains the benefits of the Multiattack and Multiweapon Fighting feats."
No doubt you'll repeat the illogical 'wielding does not equal attacking' and 'gaining Multiweapon Fighting does not mean you can actually USE multiple weapons' arguments, but for most people that text clearly indicates that the extra arms allow extra weapon attacks.
Would you find an official blog post on how the rules around TWF, multi-weapon fighting, non-handed weapons, non-handed weapons, iterative attacks with different weapons (is that TWF but without penalties?) and extra armed creatures are meant to interact helpful?
No, really.
Chances are high that such a blog post would be used to "fix the rules" in a martials can't have nice things way.Nearly every time martial combat rules get readdressed they get a nerf.
|
|
Lets look at the feats, shall we?
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.
Two-Weapon Fighting (Combat)
You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the secondary weapon.
Prerequisite: Dex 15.
Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. See Two-Weapon Fighting in Combat.
Normal: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way you suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand. If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light.
So, yes, one can fight with multiple weapons, at a -6/-10. Feats can lessen this penalty, as can wielding light weapons in the offhands.
Also, according to Multiweapon Fighting, a character with more then two arms CAN NOT take Two Weapon Fighting, as the former feat replaces it. Now, this does not include Alchemists that grew a vestile arm, or some other exceptions like Prehensile tails.
So the question becomes whether or not a player can take a Bestiary feat. It is a moot point in PFS (as if the four arm race is ever given as a boon, I expect the Multiweapon Fighting be mentioned as an option on the boon) but in a home campaign, I expect the GM to actually say that the character NEEDS to take multiweapon fighting if he wants to fight with more than one weapon, as TWF would be unavailable.
It isn't the four arms that is giving the extra attack, it is the ability to use those arms that would. Learning not to slice oneself is paramount to multi-wielding blades.
If one is taking TWF, though, it doesn't matter how many arms you have, you will attack as TWF dictates.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The MWF feat itself does not grant extra attacks.
However, the 'Normal' condition specified in the MWF feat text indicates that these attacks are automatically available to creatures with extra arms. Then referencing the 'Two-Weapon Fighting' rules in the combat section of the Core rulebook for further clarification. Just like the TWF feat.
You don't need a feat or special ability to 'enable' extra attacks from extra arms, just like a two armed creature doesn't need a feat or special ability to enable its one 'off hand' attack. Which is why NONE of the creatures that have 2+ weapon attacks have any ability saying, 'this enables multiple attacks'. That is already covered under the TWF rules and TWF/MWF feat 'Normal' sections.
|
|
The difference, DBDunkerson, is that TWF will not get extra attacks because of the extra arms and Multiweapon Fighting does not use the improved TWF feats to build off of. If you have a three armed person (not getting that arm from abilities or spells), MWF and TWF with Improved TWF do essentially the same thing. Three attacks. One costs two feats because of the lack of a third arm.
The feat is likely needed to make those attacks able to actually hit something.
The other thing is that MWF replaces TWF for that creature (with four arms), so getting TWF for it is up to the campaign/GM fiat. It is up to the GM whether or not the players or the character has access to the feats within the Bestiary. (Assuming the player is allow to play the unusual four arm race in the first place)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I truly fear the oddball rulings that the PDT might come up in a blog, errata, or FAQ (they have not had a great track record on the bigger issues these last two years--always leaning towards rulings that limit player options).
FAQing anyways.
|
|
I truly fear the oddball rulings that the PDT might come up in a blog, errata, or FAQ (they have not had a great track record on the bigger issues these last two years--always leaning towards rulings that limit player options).
I really don't see how they could change this rule without blowing up dozens of previously published examples. Think back over the FAQs which have 'changed' things (at least from the perspective of some players)... can you name one which invalidated dozens of published stat blocks? I can't, and I don't think they'd want the headaches of saying, 'this is the rule... except all those times when it consistently wasn't'.
Every arm after the second grants the potential for an off-hand weapon attack at -10 to hit and 0.5x strength bonus to damage. The MWF feat reduces the penalty to hit by 6, and if all off-hand weapons are light the penalty is further reduced by 2. All exactly like TWF, just with extra off-hands. That has always been the rule for Pathfinder. Every stat block they have ever published is consistent with these rules (though some are further modified by other abilities). Thus, I see very little chance of it changing.
Of course, that is also one of the many reasons I don't think this is a FAQ candidate at all.
I truly fear the oddball rulings that the PDT might come up in a blog, errata, or FAQ (they have not had a great track record on the bigger issues these last two years--always leaning towards rulings that limit player options).
Thanks for saying this better than I could.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another week or so, another 4 new threads, 316 Posts and 12 FAQs (excluding this thread). That brings the running total to 3055 Posts and 128 FAQs. This week's additions are:
Threatened Space & Wielding Two Weapons versus Attacking with Two Weapons +1 Post
Two brass knucks and headbutt (two-weapon fighting + unarmed strike) possible ? 9 Posts
Does having extra arms grant extra off hand attacks. +136 Posts +8 FAQs
Can anyone kick? +95 Posts +4 FAQs
Two weapon fighting with light crossbows 41 Posts 0 FAQs
Fighting with two weapons 12 Posts 0 FAQs
Attack of Opportunity with a Whip? 22 Posts 0 FAQs
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if the lack of a blog is more due to the PDT being baffled by our collective difficulties in understanding it or perhaps they themselves dont agree on where the limits should be.
The latter probably. And asking themselves how many things the reply will affect.