About the Marilith


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 61 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/bestiary/demon.html#demon-marilith

Just wondering why the mail it has doesn't get iterative with all six of her swords? And, how would she have to be modified to do so?


it has neither multi weapon fighting nor improved twf and greater twf so no multiple iritatices for the extra arms


9 sword attacks per round is not enough?


It doesn't get 9 attacks, though. It gets 5 sword attacks (as it's actually two-weapon fighting, but taking no penalties) and a tail slap.

You could throw in multiweapon fighting, improved two-weapon fighting and greater two weapon fighting for a grand total of 12 attacks, which seems...like a lot. Just a bit.

Now give it some pistols and....


i had a build that had something like 28 attacks a round XD grant it each one took a -2 to there hit total instead of no penalties like this creature but hey 28 attacks some of them are bound to hit even with just a low 20 on the to hit


Garbage-Tier Waifu wrote:

It doesn't get 9 attacks, though. It gets 5 sword attacks (as it's actually two-weapon fighting, but taking no penalties) and a tail slap.

You could throw in multiweapon fighting, improved two-weapon fighting and greater two weapon fighting for a grand total of 12 attacks, which seems...like a lot. Just a bit.

Now give it some pistols and....

So their all touch attacks helping to make penalties to those attacks irrelevant? might as well throw in rapid shot and multi-shot.

Well move over balor. gunslinger marilith is now the higher CR demon in fact demigorgon had better watch his collective arses at that point.

Dark Archive

Vidmaster7 wrote:
Well move over balor. gunslinger marilith is now the higher CR demon in fact demigorgon had better watch his collective arses at that point.

Hekatonkheries gunslinger for the win!

A Marilith could totally benefit from being able to dual wield shields, like those Aspis dudes from 1st edition. (or even quad wield shields...) Give the lady a greatsword, a breastplate and four shields (and the ability to stack shield bonuses, obviously) and let her use iterative attacks or vital strike with the greatsword, and she'd be hard to take down!


Sadly, shield bonuses do not stack. BUT, using Shield Slam, that is a LOT of bullrushes. You'd be slamming them across football fields with that many attacks!


Six basic attacks plus three normal iteratives with the main hand weapon seems to be as high as you can go. Multiattack only applies to natural weapons, and neither that nor multiweapon fighting grants extra attacks with off-hand weapons anyway. Further, multiweapon fighting REPLACES two-weapon fighting for creatures with three or more hands, so no extra iteratives on off-hand weapons are possible, since ITWF etc requires TWF as prerequisite.


I think if a feat replaces another, then it qualifies for feats that use that feat as a prerequisite :P


Garbage-Tier Waifu wrote:
It doesn't get 9 attacks, though. It gets 5 sword attacks (as it's actually two-weapon fighting, but taking no penalties) and a tail slap.

The entry clearly states that it gets all four attacks with its primary weapon, five additional attacks with it's secondary weapons, and a tail slap.

I'll just copy-paste the entry for reference.

Quote:
Melee +1 longsword +24/+19/+14/+9 (2d6+8/17–20), 5 +1 longswords +24 (2d6+4/17–20), tail slap +17 (2d6+3 plus grab) or 6 slams +22 (1d8+7), tail slap +17 (2d6+3 plus grab)

So that's all this:

Melee +1 longsword +24/+19/+14/+9 (2d6+8/17–20), 5 +1 longswords +24 (2d6+4/17–20), tail slap +17 (2d6+3 plus grab)

or this:

6 slams +22 (1d8+7), tail slap +17 (2d6+3 plus grab)

Edit: Wait, crap - unless you meant it gets 10 attacks - 4 iterative attacks with primary, 5 with secondary, and 1 tail slap.

If so, my apologies for misinterpreting your meaning. It sounded like you were saying it ONLY got 5 sword attacks and a tail slap (and no primary weapon attacks), but looking back, I see the sentence can be read two ways.

Edit 2: Yeah, okay, rereading again, I am now certain that you meant 10. Plus 2 from two additional feats to get 12. That did not click with me before, sorry.

I will, however, leave this post (slightly edited) just in case anyone else reads your post wrong and gets confused.


Yeah I'm still confused on how it doesn't get 9 sword attacks.


Lemartes wrote:
Yeah I'm still confused on how it doesn't get 9 sword attacks.

It does. I'm 95% sure GTW was pointing out that it gets a tail slap in addition to 9 sword attacks, and just forgot to mention the main iterative attacks.

Later, GTW says that two additional attacks would raise the total to 12, so clearly GTW agrees that it gets 10 attacks - 9 sword attacks and one tail slam. It is only that first sentence that makes things confusing, and I think the point of that was only to remind us about the tail attack.

I think.

But yeah, a Marilith out of the Bestiary/SRD with no modifications has 10 attacks per round. 4 iterative with primary, 5 off-hand, and 1 tail.


Okay. Thanks.

I knew about the tail I just didn't put it in as the OP was talking about swords.


Soz for confusion...

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

As Greyward points out, the creature gets 4 attacks with the primary sword (due to BAB), 5 off-hand attacks with her other swords, and a tail slap.


Thanks, everyone. Much appreciated.

If I'm understanding correctly, in order to get 4 attacks with each of its six arms, the marilith would need feats that currently are not official that mimic improved and greater two-weapon fighting, but apply to multiple limbs... Improved Multiweapon Fighting and Greater Multiweapon Fighting... Assuming the marilith's Multiweapon Mastery would fulfill the likely Multiweapon Fighting prerequisite for the unofficial feat chain.

I was hoping that there was an official way to get there as I believe if anyone would pursue such an insane number of attacks, it would be a marilith.


no unofficial feat chain needed just need multi weapon fighting, improved two weapon frighting and greater two weapon fighting which will net the creature 4 attacks with one hand and 3 attacks for each offhand attack


Then why doesn't the marilith have that?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Because the designers want you to have a chance at living.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Lady-J wrote:
no unofficial feat chain needed just need multi weapon fighting, improved two weapon frighting and greater two weapon fighting which will net the creature 4 attacks with one hand and 3 attacks for each offhand attack

You don't get extra off-hand attacks for each limb. You get your primary and your off-hand iterative attacks, and then you get an extra attack for each extra limb. As shown in the maralith's stat block. Long and short of it, you have 1 set of off-hand attacks, regardless of how many physical hands you have.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
no unofficial feat chain needed just need multi weapon fighting, improved two weapon frighting and greater two weapon fighting which will net the creature 4 attacks with one hand and 3 attacks for each offhand attack
You don't get extra off-hand attacks for each limb. You get your primary and your off-hand iterative attacks, and then you get an extra attack for each extra limb. As shown in the maralith's stat block. Long and short of it, you have 1 set of off-hand attacks, regardless of how many physical hands you have.

the maralith has none of those feats so no it is not reflected in the stat block and if it were it would get 15 offhand attacks and 4 main hand attacks

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Incorrect.

Two-Weapon Fighting wrote:
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.
Xill wrote:
Melee short swords +13/+13/+8 (1d6+3/19–20), claw +13 (1d4+3 plus grab), bite +7 (1d3+1 plus paralysis), or 4 claws +13 (1d4+3 plus grab), bite +12 (1d3+3 plus paralysis)

The xill is using Two-Weapon Fighting to get one extra attack with his off-hand. Note that despite still having two extra arms, he is not making iterative attacks with them, despite his multiweapon mastery.

Asura, Upasunda wrote:
Melee mwk longsword +19/+14/+9 (1d8+6/19–20), mwk spear +19 (1d8+9/x3), mwk kukri +19 (1d4+6/18–20), 2 slams +13 (1d4+3) or 6 slams +18 (1d4+6)

Note that the upasunda has three weapons and only gets iteratives on the longsword, despite being perfectly able to use TWF.


yes but multi weapon fighting replaces two weapon fighting and qualifies it for improved twf and greater twf which auto swap over to apply to the other offhands

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.

Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

All multi-weapon fighting does is reduce penalties. It does not grant any extra attacks. The creatures I quoted have multiweapon mastery, which removes ALL penalties, and they still do not take more than one set of off-hand iteratives. It may replace the TWF feat, but it does not replace the TWF rules that I quoted.


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.

Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms.

Grand Lodge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
All multi-weapon fighting does is reduce penalties. It does not grant any extra attacks. The creatures I quoted have multiweapon mastery, which removes ALL penalties, and they still do not take more than one set of off-hand iteratives. It may replace the TWF feat, but it does not replace the TWF rules that I quoted.

So does the marilith

Pfsrd wrote:


You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the secondary weapon.

Because of the use of the word 'the' instead of 'each of the ...s' I'm inclined to think that the Marilith gets 2 extra attacks for ITWF and GTWF for one weapon

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Lady-J wrote:
Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms.

But does not replace the Two-Weapon Fighting rules in the Combat section. You only ever get one set of off-hand attacks. If you can find wording otherwise, please produce it.


reading through I think tri might be right on this one.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

See this developer commentary.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
What was the reason for the 'no' to armour spikes?

Because the game has an unwritten rule which essentially states the following:

  • A 1st-level standard-race PC can either make one melee attack without TWF or you can make two melee attacks with TWF.

  • The most damage you can do without TWF is using a 1H or 2H weapon in two hands for x1.5 Str damage, and the most damage you can do with TWF is x1 in the main hand and x.5 in the off-hand (for a total of x1.5 Str added to your weapons), so optimally you're getting no more that x1.5 Str no matter which attack mode you choose.

  • While the game doesn't explicitly limit your attacks to "hands," that's the basic assumption, and you shouldn't be able to pile on additional attacks per round just because you can think up additional or alternative body parts to attack with.

Grand Lodge

I don't know it says If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon
No it doesn't mention getting more than one set of attacks but it doesn't mention improved and greater two weapon fight either
I'm going to sit on the fence for this one


TriOmegaZero wrote:
You only ever get one set of off-hand attacks. If you can find wording otherwise, please produce it.

This sentence doesn't seem quite accurate.

Multiweapon Fighting wrote:

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.
Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms.

So you get more than one set of off-hand attacks, as each extra hand is a separate off-hand and makes its own off-hand attack.

I think there can be legitimate disagreement about how ITWF and GTWF would then improve on a multiweapon fighting creature.

Take Improved Two-Weapon Fighting for example.

Improved Two-Weapon Fighting wrote:

In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with it, albeit at a –5 penalty.

Normal: Without this feat, you can only get a single extra attack with an off-hand weapon

The phrase "an off-hand weapon" could be read to mean any off-hand weapon you wield (which is several for a multiweapon fighting creature) so you get the extra attack with each (as Lady-J suggests).

It could also be read to mean a singular off-hand weapon, regardless of how many you have. So you pick one and get an extra attack with only that one (as TriOmegaZero suggests).

The word "a" or "an" is sometimes, but not always, an indicator of a singular member, but can also refer to a representative member that can reflect an entire group.

So I think each side can read the same sentence to support their belief.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Samasboy1 wrote:

So you get more than one set of off-hand attacks, as each extra hand is a separate off-hand and makes its own off-hand attack.

My apologies. You never get more than one set of off-hand iterative attacks.


TriOmegaZero wrote:


The xill ....

Note that the upasunda ....

I am not sure what these examples prove.

The Xill matriarch has ITWF, but is only wielding two weapons. The other attacks are natural weapons and aren't actually using the TWF/MWF rules for off-hands.

The Upasunda doesn't have ITWF, so it isn't illustrative of how that feat would work with multiweapon fighting.

What you would need would be a multi-armed monster, fighting with more than two weapons (not natural weapons) with ITWF/GTWF that only got extra attacks with one off-hand.


That said, since I see the situation as ambiguous, I would think TriomegaZero's reading, being the more conservative, is the more likely to be correct.

Having one feat give a monster 5 more attacks seems a bit much.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Samasboy1 wrote:
I am not sure what these examples prove.

That the xill is using TWF to get one extra attack, and that the upasunda is not, despite having multiple weapons. The upasunda is two-handing the longsword as far as I can tell, following the ruling that you cannot use two handed weapons at the same time as making off-hand attacks despite having multiple available weapons. If every offhand could gain iteratives, the upasunda could one hand the sword and add extra attacks to every weapon, as TWF is not required to do so, only to avoid the large penalties.


The Xill is wielding 2 weapons, plus natural attacks. She has ITWF, but the feat only affects weapons, not natural attacks.

So she gets her primary hand (3 attacks from BAB), off hand (2 attacks for ITWF), and then natural attacks (outside the rules for TWF).

Her Matriarch Weapon Mastery removes penalties from the off hand and natural attacks.

But Matriarch Weapon Mastery would also allow her to fight with 4 short swords at no penalty. Since they didn't stat her with 4 short swords, we don't see how ITWF would have applied to more than one off hand.

The Upasunda, conversely, is wielding 3 manufactured weapons. For some reason they don't add in the unused hands as natural attacks. She doesn't have ITWF, so provides no benefit to determining how ITWF would affect multiple off hands.

We do see her primary hand (3 attacks from BAB), off hand spear (one attack for MWF, used two handed [see +9 damage from Str vs +6 on longsword]), and off hand kukri (one attack for MWF).

That should leave 2 unoccupied hands to make slams that aren't listed.

Multiweapon Mastery removes penalties for using multiple weapons, but without ITWF it doesn't provide any info on the issue at hand.

The Upasunda DOES show that she can wield a two-handed weapon off hand while also attacking with other weapons.

The question, as I see it, that you and Lady-J are discussing is whether ITWF or GTWF would provide additional attacks to more than one off hand.

Neither example gives much guidance, as in one case the Xill isn't using more than one off-hand weapon, and in the other the Upasunda doesn't have ITWF.


Sorry, just noticed you were using a standard Xill and not the Matriarch.

A standard Xill doesn't have ITWF either. So, like the Upasunda, there is no reason for it to get multiple attacks with any off hand weapon (whether its using one or 3).

It has the primary 2 from BAB, one off hand from MWF, and then natural attacks (all with penalties removed from Multiweapon Mastery).

Again, it could have been given 4 short swords and would have had 2 from BAB, 1 from each off hand (3 total), and a bite; but it isn't presented that way.

Just like the Upasunda, its shows that standard MWF would provide a single off hand attack with each off hand, but doesn't have bearing on if ITWF would provide all off hands or just one off hand extra attacks.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

You don't need ITWF. The TWF rules allow you to gain an extra attack with an off-hand weapon at any time, which the standard xill does. All TWF does is reduce the penalties for doing so.


You guys are talking past each other.

Nobody is arguing about how TWF works here. The discussion is about IMPROVED TWF.
Lady J said that I TWF would give each offhand an additional attack due to the specific wording.
In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with it, albeit at a –5 penalty.

This can easily be read as to provide EVERY off hand that you use to TWF can gain an additional attack from ITWF


TriOmegaZero wrote:
You don't need ITWF. The TWF rules allow you to gain an extra attack with an off-hand weapon at any time, which the standard xill does. All TWF does is reduce the penalties for doing so.

To answer how ITWF interacts with MWF, yes you do.

Let's recap the discussion. Lady-J said if a Marilith had ITWF/GTWF she would get the extra attacks with every off hand.

You said, no you wouldn't, the extra attacks would only apply to one off hand.

The whole point of the disagreement is how ITWF/GTWF would interact with MWF.

Your two examples provide not guidance on that question, as they don't have ITWF (or in the case of the Matriarch I referenced, aren't MWF).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Samasboy1 wrote: "Having one feat give a monster 5 more attacks seems a bit much."

When you put it that way, it really puts it into perspective.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Samasboy1 wrote:
Your two examples provide not guidance on that question, as they don't have ITWF (or in the case of the Matriarch I referenced, aren't MWF).

They don't have to, because they illustrate the 'hands of effort' FAQ. No matter how many physical hands you have, you can only use iteratives with two of them, because ruleswise you only get the one set of off-hand iteratives.


Umm....that doesn't make any sense.

The "Hands of Effort" idea says your character has two "hands" of effort. So if you use a two handed weapon, you can't use an off-hand weapon even if it doesn't actually use a hand.

But the Upasunda obviously has more than two "hands" as it is using 3 different melee weapons.

And the "hands of effort" FAQ would prevent making attacks with extra "hands" at all not just iteratives.

A Human has a longsword in one hand, a dagger in the other, and a blade boot.

He can make a full attack with any one of those, plus one extra attack with either of the others (but not both) because of his second "hand." He can't make and extra attack with the third weapon at all.

He doesn't get iterative attacks with the second weapon without a feat. The iteratives don't require more hands of effort, attacking with the weapon at all requires a free "hand."

The Upasunda demonstrably has more "hands."

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

But not more hands of effort, which is what off-hand iteratives requires. That's why you can't use a two handed weapon and still get an off-hand attack with armor spikes. It's the same with multi-armed creatures. Multi-weapon Fighting reduces the penalties they face, but it doesn't let them break the limit on iteratives.


Samasboy1 wrote:

Umm....that doesn't make any sense.

The "Hands of Effort" idea says your character has two "hands" of effort. So if you use a two handed weapon, you can't use an off-hand weapon even if it doesn't actually use a hand.

But the Upasunda obviously has more than two "hands" as it is using 3 different melee weapons.

And the "hands of effort" FAQ would prevent making attacks with extra "hands" at all not just iteratives.

A Human has a longsword in one hand, a dagger in the other, and a blade boot.

He can make a full attack with any one of those, plus one extra attack with either of the others (but not both) because of his second "hand." He can't make and extra attack with the third weapon at all.

He doesn't get iterative attacks with the second weapon without a feat. The iteratives don't require more hands of effort, attacking with the weapon at all requires a free "hand."

The Upasunda demonstrably has more "hands."

The FAQ was clarified to be talking about normal humanoids with 2 arms.

If you have more arms, you can have more "hands" of effort and are less limited.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Until I hear anything in the rules that say off-hands can get iteratives at all, I will run that they don't. A few reasons:

No multiarmed monster has a stat block that shows it's possible.
Multiweapon Fighting replaces Two-Weapon Fighting, and crucially doesn't grant the extra attack TWF does.
"Replaces" tells me that MWF doesn't actually count as a prereq for ITWF.
Balance-wise, a creature with 20 attacks is not a good concept.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
But not more hands of effort, which is what off-hand iteratives requires. That's why you can't use a two handed weapon and still get an off-hand attack with armor spikes. It's the same with multi-armed creatures. Multi-weapon Fighting reduces the penalties they face, but it doesn't let them break the limit on iteratives.

Hands of effort has nothing to do with iteratives. It restricts attacking with the weapon, period.

A Upasunda is attacking with a primary weapon, and two off hand weapons. A Human COULD NOT do that.

Thus the Upasunda has more than two hands of effort.

"Sissyl wrote:

Until I hear anything in the rules that say off-hands can get iteratives at all, I will run that they don't. A few reasons:

No multiarmed monster has a stat block that shows it's possible.
Multiweapon Fighting replaces Two-Weapon Fighting, and crucially doesn't grant the extra attack TWF does.
"Replaces" tells me that MWF doesn't actually count as a prereq for ITWF.
Balance-wise, a creature with 20 attacks is not a good concept.

I agree that having one feat add 5 attacks seems excessive.

As for whether you can qualify for ITWF with MWF, I think that is ambiguous. "Replaces" could mean it would replace in all instances, including when looking at pre-requisites; but then again it could mean it would only replace the TWF feat and nothing else.

TWF (feat) doesn't provide an extra attack. TWF (fighting with two weapons) does, just at MWF (feat) doesn't provide extra attacks but MWF (fighting with more than 2 weapons) does for creatures with multiple arms.

Using stats is a tricky thing. If you see a monster doing something, it is strong evidence it can be done. However, not seeing a monster doing something isn't very good evidence it can't be done. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would actually have no problem with it if the Marilith's stat block said,
"Melee six +1 longswords +22/+17/+12/+7 (2d6+8/17–20) and tail slap +17 (2d6+3 plus grab)," for 25 attacks total per round.

The thing is CR 17 -- the same CR at which your PC is dropping time stops. Anyone who tries to fight it in melee probably should die, unless they're Herakles or some other demigod-prowess individual.
(Sadly, the PF game as written doesn't really allow a 17th level fighter to emulate that, but that's a topic for a different set of threads.)


TriOmegaZero wrote:
But not more hands of effort, which is what off-hand iteratives requires. That's why you can't use a two handed weapon and still get an off-hand attack with armor spikes. It's the same with multi-armed creatures. Multi-weapon Fighting reduces the penalties they face, but it doesn't let them break the limit on iteratives.

I have to agree with others that the Off-Hand metaphysical limitations would affect the off-hand attacks and off-hand iterative attacks equally. It has nothing to do with one or the other, but rather both at the same time.

Your example about a two-handed weapon and armor spikes applies to a level 1 fighter with no iterative attacks at all. Your own example defeats your argument.

Note, that doesn't mean that I think the Marilith should/would get a million attacks, just that the metaphysical hand ruling as you mentioned probably isn't a deciding factor.

Personally, I think it is something that Paizo just never cared to answer. There have been multiple threads over the years about how to work extra limbs and attacks. It appears Paizo is silent in most of them.

1 to 50 of 61 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / About the Marilith All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.