Magus with 3 or more arms


Rules Questions


Can a Magus that has 3 or more arms use a 2 handed weapon and spell combat in the same attack? Alternately can a Magus use more than one weapon to use the Spellstrike ability? I couldn't find firm rulings on either of these. Please help me with these answers. Thanks!!


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The only requirement is that you have a hand free. A Kasatha should be able to wield a two-hander and a shield, while using spell combat, because they have four arms..


Kryzbyn wrote:
The only requirement is that you have a hand free. A Kasatha should be able to wield a two-hander and a shield, while using spell combat.

Not to delve off into Metaphysical Hands debates. But we do have to wonder if Kasatha actually do get said ability as witnessed by the massive threads involving whether or not they can attack with all those arms.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Indeed, the "handsiness" of the Kasatha would need to be determined :)


Had this argument in another thread. Kasatha have an archtype where they can with hefty minus use two Longbows at once. It supports the theory they can use melee weapons in all four arms with the multiweapon feat. Our group ruled it but a lot of discussion on this site say otherwise. I as a GM allow a Kasatha to use all four arms since the design and intent of the race supports that concept.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
FAQ wrote:

Magus, Spell Combat: When using spell combat, do I specifically have to use the weapon in my other hand, or can I use a mixture of weapons (such as armor spikes and bites) so long as my casting hand remains free?

You specifically have to use the light or one-handed melee weapon in your other hand.

Always singular, like the text in the ability description.

FAQ wrote:

Magus, Spell Combat: If I use spell combat, how many weapon attacks can I make?

You can make as many weapon attacks as you would normally be able to make if you were making a full attack with that weapon. For example, if you are an 8th-level magus (BAB +6/+1), you could make two weapon attacks when using spell combat.

Edit 9/9/13: This is a revised ruling about how haste interacts with effects that are essentially a full attack, even though the creature isn't specifically using the full attack action (as required by haste). The earlier ruling implied that spell combat did not allow the extra attack from haste (because spell combat was not using the full attack action).

"That weapon", not weapons.

Conclusive evidence? Not at all, but that is a problem of the description of the kasatha race, not of the magus. Simply the rules are written for a race with 2 hands, and the kasatha don't change that.

Note that the first FAQ seem to rule out natural weapons, too, so I would say that it limit you to only 1 weapon, regardless of the number of limbs you can use to attack.

Derek Dalton wrote:

Had this argument in another thread. Kasatha have an archtype where they can with hefty minus use two Longbows at once. It supports the theory they can use melee weapons in all four arms with the multiweapon feat. Our group ruled it but a lot of discussion on this site say otherwise. I as a GM allow a Kasatha to use all four arms since the design and intent of the race supports that concept.

An archetype allow you to do something outside the normal rules =/= the normal rule is what the archetype do.

What an archetype get as a special ability isn't an indication of what a character can normally do.

Honestly the kasatha race description is too short to be really clear on how it work. the bestiary example don't make multiple attacks, multy armed say "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." and that can be read both ways.

And for the hundredth time, please, read what the multiweapon feat do. It don't grant attacks, it only reduce the penalties.
Maybe Multi-Armed grant them, but having or lacking the multiweapon feat don't change that.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

There are no exact rules, so whether or not you can TWF and THF fight at the same time with 3+ arms is in "Ask your GM" zone.


James Risner wrote:
There are no exact rules, so whether or not you can TWF and THF fight at the same time with 3+ arms is in "Ask your GM" zone.

You're forgetting the metaphysical, "Hands of Effort" FAQ that makes such a thing impossible, because martials can't ever have nice things.


I never said the feat granted extra attacks it merely reduced penalties which as a four arm creature it applies for. No it's not clear but our group having four functional arms allow me to use all four for weapon attacks if I wanted.


Kryzbyn wrote:
The only requirement is that you have a hand free. A Kasatha should be able to wield a two-hander and a shield, while using spell combat, because they have four arms..

They'll have all the non-proficiency penalties that come with shield use.


Based on the wording of the ability and the various FAQs concerning these matters, the melee weapon you use during Spell Combat must be either a one-handed or light weapon. That could be an actual one-handed or light weapon, or it could be a "counts as" one-handed or light weapon (eg. Quarterstaff w/ Quarterstaff Master, Greatsword one size too small, etc.). Besides that, you need to use your weapon in one hand and you cast spells in your other hand and the spell-casting hand must be kept free for the duration of the action. This means you can't use a shield in one hand, make unarmed strikes with your other hand, and also cast your spell with that same punching hand. Therefore, your entire off-hand attack economy is subsumed by the casting of the spell. Therefore, you can't use your off-hand attack economy either to make off-hand attacks with another weapon (in the case of a >2 armed Magus) nor can you subsume it to make two-handed attacks (neither with a two-handed weapon nor a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands). Magus simply wasn't written with >2 armed characters in mind.

Now, that having been said, a racial archetype centered around the Kathasa (or another similar race) would certainly be appropriate.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kaouse wrote:
James Risner wrote:
There are no exact rules, so whether or not you can TWF and THF fight at the same time with 3+ arms is in "Ask your GM" zone.
You're forgetting the metaphysical, "Hands of Effort" FAQ that makes such a thing impossible, because martials can't ever have nice things.

Various 'hands of effort' limits stated by the devs years ago were specifically intended only for 'normal' characters / races with two arms and no natural attacks.

So far as I am concerned, there is no question that each additional arm normally allows an additional weapon attack in Pathfinder (i.e. an additional 'hand of effort'). That seems to be clearly stated in multiple places and there are far too many stat blocks which work that way for it to be an error.

How spell combat would work for a 3+ armed creature is unclear... as written the ability clearly assumes a creature with only two arms; "must have one hand free ..., while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand". Since it is supposed to work like TWF I'd probably treat it as MWF with the same restrictions... need at least one hand free and the others can only wield light or one-handed melee weapons. Other GMs might only allow a single light or one-handed melee weapon... though that could allow two arms to be used to hold shields, potions, et cetera.

Spellstrike, on the other hand, should work just fine with any number / type of melee weapons as the ability doesn't specify any limitations.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Always singular, like the text in the ability description.

All rules are written with the assumption of standard human physiology. This has been clearly stated by multiple developers over the years.

That assumption becomes invalid the moment you deviate from the standard.

The terminology you are looking for is something like:

Gather Power wrote:
If she has both hands free (or all of her prehensile appendages free, for unusual kineticists),

The magus is not bound by this limitation.

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:


They'll have all the non-proficiency penalties that come with shield use.

Mithral bucklers have no ACP and no % arcane spell failure.

Kazaan wrote:
Based on the wording of the ability and the various FAQs concerning these matters, the melee weapon you use during Spell Combat must be either a one-handed or light weapon. That could be an actual one-handed or light weapon, or it could be a "counts as" one-handed or light weapon (eg. Quarterstaff w/ Quarterstaff Master, Greatsword one size too small, etc.).

Correct, but there is no restriction on two-handing a one-handed weapon. The alchemist discovery Vestigial Arm would allow a magus to two-hand a one-handed weapon while using spell combat.


Snowlilly wrote:
Correct, but there is no restriction on two-handing a one-handed weapon. The alchemist discovery Vestigial Arm would allow a magus to two-hand a one-handed weapon while using spell combat.

It's the off-hand attack economy that restricts two-handing a one-handed weapon. Wielding a one-handed weapon with two hands also subsumes your off-hand attack economy which is already being used by the off-hand spell.


Kazaan wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
Correct, but there is no restriction on two-handing a one-handed weapon. The alchemist discovery Vestigial Arm would allow a magus to two-hand a one-handed weapon while using spell combat.
It's the off-hand attack economy that restricts two-handing a one-handed weapon. Wielding a one-handed weapon with two hands also subsumes your off-hand attack economy which is already being used by the off-hand spell.

People with more than two hands have .... more than two hands available.


Snowlilly wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
Correct, but there is no restriction on two-handing a one-handed weapon. The alchemist discovery Vestigial Arm would allow a magus to two-hand a one-handed weapon while using spell combat.
It's the off-hand attack economy that restricts two-handing a one-handed weapon. Wielding a one-handed weapon with two hands also subsumes your off-hand attack economy which is already being used by the off-hand spell.
People with more than two hands have .... more than two hands available.

But man do they like have more than like 2 metaphysical hands?


Talonhawke wrote:


But man do they like have more than like 2 metaphysical hands?

I assume you can count when he holds his hands up.

1+1+1 = ???


Alchemists with the extra arms are limited as described. But the Aegis with all the extra arms and the Kasatha state they use all four arms without restrictions. You could use three of your four arms in combat. One handed weapon, cast a spell have a shield and have an extra arm to hold a weapon.


Snowlilly wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
Correct, but there is no restriction on two-handing a one-handed weapon. The alchemist discovery Vestigial Arm would allow a magus to two-hand a one-handed weapon while using spell combat.
It's the off-hand attack economy that restricts two-handing a one-handed weapon. Wielding a one-handed weapon with two hands also subsumes your off-hand attack economy which is already being used by the off-hand spell.
People with more than two hands have .... more than two hands available.

And a Magus with ITWF and GTWF, who normally has a larger pool for off-hand attacks, still can't use them in conjunction with their spell because the spell subsumes all off-hand attack economy (even if you have multiple hand's worth).

Liberty's Edge

Derek Dalton wrote:
I never said the feat granted extra attacks it merely reduced penalties which as a four arm creature it applies for. No it's not clear but our group having four functional arms allow me to use all four for weapon attacks if I wanted.

That is decidedly wrong.

Spell combat wrote:
To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand.

Even if you are a Hekatonkheires with 100 arms, you are still limited to light or one handed weapons, you can't use 2 handed weapons.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Derek Dalton wrote:
I never said the feat granted extra attacks it merely reduced penalties which as a four arm creature it applies for. No it's not clear but our group having four functional arms allow me to use all four for weapon attacks if I wanted.
That is decidedly wrong.

What's wrong about getting to use all of your arms for attacking with weapons, especially when they're described as normal arms rather than limited ones?


God, a diopsid magus would be...terrifyingly awesome.

I should run a PbP of just weird Dragon magazine races. Dvati. Diopsids. Those halflings that turn into cats. Better still, I should just send these monstrosities against my players.


Kazaan wrote:
And a Magus with ITWF and GTWF, who normally has a larger pool for off-hand attacks, still can't use them in conjunction with their spell because the spell subsumes all off-hand attack economy (even if you have multiple hand's worth).

I would really like to see the RAW for that - but it's not really relevant to the assertion that a magus with 3+ hands can two-hand his weapon while using spell combat.

Spoiler:
I know damn well there is no RAW in either direction. With the sole exception of kineticist, RAW is written with the assumption of a standard humanoid body configuration.

You know what they say happens when you ass.u.me


Diego Rossi wrote:
Derek Dalton wrote:
I never said the feat granted extra attacks it merely reduced penalties which as a four arm creature it applies for. No it's not clear but our group having four functional arms allow me to use all four for weapon attacks if I wanted.

That is decidedly wrong.

Spell combat wrote:
To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand.
Even if you are a Hekatonkheires with 100 arms, you are still limited to light or one handed weapons, you can't use 2 handed weapons.

Correct, but you could two-hand a one-handed weapon.

A kasatha magus could, for example: two-hand a bastard sword, use a mithral buckler, and still have a hand free for spell combat.

Kazaan wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
Correct, but there is no restriction on two-handing a one-handed weapon. The alchemist discovery Vestigial Arm would allow a magus to two-hand a one-handed weapon while using spell combat.
It's the off-hand attack economy that restricts two-handing a one-handed weapon. Wielding a one-handed weapon with two hands also subsumes your off-hand attack economy which is already being used by the off-hand spell.

A false assumption made when dealing with characters that have more than two hands.

The RAW was only dealing with standard humanoid body configurations, where the character only has two hands available. The possibility of characters with extra hands was never addressed.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Snowlilly wrote:
A kasatha magus could, for example: two-hand a bastard sword, use a mithral buckler, and still have a hand free for spell combat.

Actually no, as that scenario used your offhand twice.


James Risner wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
A kasatha magus could, for example: two-hand a bastard sword, use a mithral buckler, and still have a hand free for spell combat.
Actually no, as that scenario used your offhand twice.

Except that Kasathas have 3 off-hands (and 1 primary hand), per their description. The scenario Snowlilly describes has the kasatha use one off-hand to wield the bastard sword (in addition to the primary hand), one to wield the buckler and the last one for spell combat, so each off-hand is only used once.

Liberty's Edge

Khudzlin wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Derek Dalton wrote:
I never said the feat granted extra attacks it merely reduced penalties which as a four arm creature it applies for. No it's not clear but our group having four functional arms allow me to use all four for weapon attacks if I wanted.
That is decidedly wrong.
What's wrong about getting to use all of your arms for attacking with weapons, especially when they're described as normal arms rather than limited ones?

Because the limitations for spell combat are:

1) at least 1 free hand
2) the use of a light or one handed weapon.

Using a two handed weapon is blocked by 2).


Diego Rossi wrote:
Khudzlin wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Derek Dalton wrote:
I never said the feat granted extra attacks it merely reduced penalties which as a four arm creature it applies for. No it's not clear but our group having four functional arms allow me to use all four for weapon attacks if I wanted.
That is decidedly wrong.
What's wrong about getting to use all of your arms for attacking with weapons, especially when they're described as normal arms rather than limited ones?

That post had nothing to do with spell combat. What I meant is that a Kasatha should be able to wield 4 one-handed weapons at the same time and attack with all of them (using a full attack action, of course), being subject to all the penalties incurred for multiweapon fighting (which are the same as for two-weapon fighting, according to the Multiweapon Fighting feat).

For the purpose of effort, I would go with this much effort required:
shield: 1 off-hand
light weapon: 1 off-hand
one-handed weapon: primary hand
two-handed weapon: primary hand and 1 off-hand
N-handed weapon: primary hand and N-1 off-hands

Using an off-hand instead of the primary hand is possible, but incurs greater penalties on all attacks (as described in the combat rules and the Two-Weapon Fighting and Multiweapon Fighting feats).

Now, back to the magus. Given that the description assumes a creature with only 2 arms, it is possible that the restriction about "the other hand" is meant to prevent the magus from using spell combat with a hand that also wields a weapon during the same round (since releasing a weapon with one hand is a free action), rather than limiting the magus to only 1-handed and light weapons (though I can see it the other way, too).


Diego Rossi wrote:
Khudzlin wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Derek Dalton wrote:
I never said the feat granted extra attacks it merely reduced penalties which as a four arm creature it applies for. No it's not clear but our group having four functional arms allow me to use all four for weapon attacks if I wanted.
That is decidedly wrong.
What's wrong about getting to use all of your arms for attacking with weapons, especially when they're described as normal arms rather than limited ones?

Because the limitations for spell combat are:

1) at least 1 free hand
2) the use of a light or one handed weapon.

Using a two handed weapon is blocked by 2).

Two-handing a one-handed weapon is not blocked.

For the exact same reasons you cannot use spell combat with a two-handed weapon held in one hand. Changing the number of hands on a weapon does not change the weapons classification unless a feat/ability explicitly says it does.

Example 1: a magus with a one level dip in titan mauler cannot spell combat with an earth breaker, even though he can use it one handed. The earth breaker remains a two-handed weapon regardless of the number of hands used to wield it.

Example 2: a kashatha magus can spell combat with a longsword held in two hands. The longsword remains a one-handed weapon regardless of the number of hands used to wield it.

Liberty's Edge

Snowlilly wrote:
Example 1: a magus with a one level dip in titan mauler cannot spell combat with an earth breaker, even though he can use it one handed. The earth breaker remains a two-handed weapon regardless of the number of hands used to wield it.

I see your unsubstantiated claim, and raise you two FAQs which say otherwise;

An unusual case of the handedness rule is an ability that allows you to treat a two-handed weapon as a one-handed weapon. For example, the titan mauler's jotungrip (which allows you to wield a two-handed weapon with one hand) allows you to wield a bastard sword in one hand even without the Exotic Weapon Proficiency, and (as the ability states) treats it as a one-handed weapon, therefore it is treated as a one-handed weapon for other effects.

If you're wielding it in one hand (even if it is normally a two-handed weapon), treat it as a one-handed weapon for the purpose of how much Strength to apply, the Power Attack damage bonus, and so on.


I don't think I've seen a magus with fewer than 3 arms: The normal one, the cold iron one, and the silver one.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
Example 1: a magus with a one level dip in titan mauler cannot spell combat with an earth breaker, even though he can use it one handed. The earth breaker remains a two-handed weapon regardless of the number of hands used to wield it.

I see your unsubstantiated claim, and raise you two FAQs which say otherwise;

An unusual case of the handedness rule is an ability that allows you to treat a two-handed weapon as a one-handed weapon. For example, the titan mauler's jotungrip (which allows you to wield a two-handed weapon with one hand) allows you to wield a bastard sword in one hand even without the Exotic Weapon Proficiency, and (as the ability states) treats it as a one-handed weapon, therefore it is treated as a one-handed weapon for other effects.

If you're wielding it in one hand (even if it is normally a two-handed weapon), treat it as a one-handed weapon for the purpose of how much Strength to apply, the Power Attack damage bonus, and so on.

Ok, maybe the titan mauler can. Poor choice of examples. There are plenty of other options for one-handing a two-handed weapon that lack that caveat.

Liberty's Edge

Snowlilly wrote:


Example 2: a kashatha magus can spell combat with a longsword held in two hands. The longsword remains a one-handed weapon regardless of the number of hands used to wield it.
Spell combat wrote:
while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand.

Hand, singular.

FAQ wrote:

Magus: When using spell combat, can the weapon in my other hand be an unarmed strike or a natural weapon?

Yes, so long as the weapon is a light or one-handed melee weapon and is associated with that hand. For example, unarmed strikes, claws, and slams are light melee weapons associated with a hand, and therefore are valid for use with spell combat. A tail slap is not associated with a hand, and therefore is not valid for use with spell combat.
posted April 2013 | back to top

Magus, Spell Combat: When using spell combat, do I specifically have to use the weapon in my other hand, or can I use a mixture of weapons (such as armor spikes and bites) so long as my casting hand remains free?

You specifically have to use the light or one-handed melee weapon in your other hand.

Again, always hand, singular. Unless you can show a special rule that allow you to bypass that "hand" limit, with spell combat you can use 1 hand with a one handed or light weapon and 1 hand with a spell.

How many hands or other fighting limbs you have don't matter.

Spell combat isn't a full attack, and, barring the abilities of some archetype, it don't work with natural attacks or other extra attacks you can get in a full attack. And using your 2nd and 3rd to attack require a full attack.

The only possible loophole is:

PRD wrote:

Magus, Spell Combat: Does spell combat count as making a full attack action for the purpose of haste and other effects?

Yes.

Edit 9/9/13: This is a revised ruling about how haste interacts with effects that are essentially a full attack, even though the creature isn't specifically using the full attack action (as required by haste). The earlier ruling did not allow the extra attack from haste when using spell combat.

Getting an attack from your 2nd and 3rd limb is a "effect"? Questionable.


Diego Rossi wrote:

Again, always hand, singular. Unless you can show a special rule that allow you to bypass that "hand" limit, with spell combat you can use 1 hand with a one handed or light weapon and 1 hand with a spell.
How many hands or other figthing limbs you have don't matter.

Back to multiple developer statements: The rules are written with the assumption of a standard human body configuration.

As soon as an extra hand is added, that assumption becomes invalid. The singular pronoun is used because that is the only option available to a character with two arms.

This conversation.

Liberty's Edge

Snowlilly wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

Again, always hand, singular. Unless you can show a special rule that allow you to bypass that "hand" limit, with spell combat you can use 1 hand with a one handed or light weapon and 1 hand with a spell.
How many hands or other figthing limbs you have don't matter.

Back to multiple developer statements: The rules are written with the assumption of a standard human body configuration.

As soon as an extra hand is added, that assumption becomes invalid.

Only half true.

You are arguing that "the basic assumption is not longer valid" is the same "my assumption that I can get the attacks from the extra limbs is valid". Instead the situation is "the basic assumption of two arms is no longer valid, we don't have a rule saying that a creature with more than 2 arms can use more than 1 weapon and 1 spell in spell combat, giving it more than the basic attacks allowed by spell combat is dubious."


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

As RAW, the light or one-handed weapon restriction is definitely a thing.
I think, though, logically, a creature with more than two arms can skirt that restriction, and as a GM I would allow it in my games.

Obviously, in PFS, you would have some table variation. I dont think adding another die of damage or .5 STR is going to overpower anything, and it's cool for flavor, but that doesn't mean a PFS GM is able to ignore RAW. A witchweird (sp?) magus would be an awesome foe to pit adventurers against, and I'm not above letting players have the same options that their enemies have (if they chose to play a Kasatha, for instance), just because the rules are tailored for standard humanoids and their biological configuration.

This, of course, means nothing toward a pure RAW conversation, so take it for what it is worth.

Liberty's Edge

Snowlilly wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:

An unusual case of the handedness rule is an ability that allows you to treat a two-handed weapon as a one-handed weapon. For example, the titan mauler's jotungrip (which allows you to wield a two-handed weapon with one hand) allows you to wield a bastard sword in one hand even without the Exotic Weapon Proficiency, and (as the ability states) treats it as a one-handed weapon, therefore it is treated as a one-handed weapon for other effects.

If you're wielding it in one hand (even if it is normally a two-handed weapon), treat it as a one-handed weapon for the purpose of how much Strength to apply, the Power Attack damage bonus, and so on.

Ok, maybe the titan mauler can. Poor choice of examples. There are plenty of other options for one-handing a two-handed weapon that lack that caveat.

Seems to me that both FAQs are saying that this applies to all abilities which allow you to wield a two-handed weapon in one hand.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Folks don't allow magus to use a bastard sword if they have the exotic proficiency with spell combat? That is a stretch...


Diego Rossi wrote:


Only half true.
You are arguing that "the basic assumption is not longer valid" is the same "my assumption that I can get the attacks from the extra limbs is valid". Instead the situation is "the basic assumption of two arms is no longer valid, we don't have a rule saying that a creature with more than 2 arms can use more than 1 weapon and 1 spell in spell combat, giving it more than the basic attacks allowed by spell combat is dubious."

Extra attacks from extra limbs is an entirely different can of worms. Extra attacks from multiple weapons would be a very borderline argument; trying to combine twf/mwf with spell combat is most likely a no-go. I would, however, allow natural weapons as secondary attacks as long as all natural attacks are associated with hands. In the case only natural attacks are used, all natural attacks associated with hands are available as normal attacks.

Natural weapons not associated with hands are not legal to combine with spell combat.


Kryzbyn wrote:
Folks don't allow magus to use a bastard sword if they have the exotic proficiency with spell combat? That is a stretch...

Bastard Sword is an exotic one handed weapon - it was never classified as a two-handed weapon.

It does contain the caveat that characters lacking the exotic weapon proficiency can wield it at a two-handed martial weapon. That does not alter the fact that the weapon is listed in the CRB as one-handed.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Oh, good. I was worried there for a second.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Magus with 3 or more arms All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.