Magus, Monk, Figther and Barbarian "extra attacks" stacking


Rules Questions


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, lets assume i have access to the all of the folowing abilities:

- Spell combat + spell strike (Magus)
- Flurry of blows (Monk)
OR - Flurry of blows (Monk unchained)
- Ligthning strike (Figther - Dawnflower dervish/Dervish of Dawn)
- Wild figthning (barbarian - Wild rager)
- Two-weapon figthning feats
- Mutation warrior extra limb discovery

I have some questions about what does and what doesnt stack as a part of a full-attack action

1) Flurry (And unchained flurry) doenst stack with ANYTHING from the list, becuse its a diferent full-attack action from the standard

2) Ligthning strike and wild figthning stacks with anything other than flurry (and unchained)

3) If i have as a mutation warrior the extra limb discovery i can make a Spellcombat+ spell strike action while wielding a one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon (meaning full attack with the two-handed plus 1 extra attack from spell strike)

3.1) If i have ALSO another extra limb, i can make attacks with the two-weapon figthning light off-hand in place of the spell combat action, meaning 1- full attack with the two-handed + off hand, or 2-full attack with the two-handed + 1 extra two-handed attack for spellstrike

3.2) i dont even need 4 limbs, i can have 3 limbs, two wielding a one-handed as a two-handed , let go the grip with one limb to cast spellcombat (as a free action) regrasp to make the atacks (as a free action), while still holding (not attacking) with the light weapon on the 3rd limb

4) Spellstrike only grants me ONE extra attack, no matter how many attacks or rays (With Close Range magus arcana) i can make with the spell

5) Its impossible to use flurry of blows (or unchained) while making a "normal" full-attack action, to add the wild figthning and ligthning strike extra attacks

5.1) and/or spell combat

5.2) And/or two-weapon figthning (unchained flurry)

6) Unchained flurry allows me to use a two-handed weapon dealing 1,5x str on dmg, normal flurry lets me use a two-handed and twf with it, but only using 1 time str on dmg


Rhuan wrote:

So, lets assume i have access to the all of the folowing abilities:

- Spell combat + spell strike (Magus)
- Flurry of blows (Monk)
OR - Flurry of blows (Monk unchained)
- Ligthning strike (Figther - Dawnflower dervish/Dervish of Dawn)
- Wild figthning (barbarian - Wild rager)
- Two-weapon figthning feats
- Mutation warrior extra limb discovery

I have some questions about what does and what doesnt stack as a part of a full-attack action

1) Flurry (And unchained flurry) doenst stack with ANYTHING from the list, becuse its a diferent full-attack action from the standard

2) Ligthning strike and wild figthning stacks with anything other than flurry (and unchained)

3) If i have as a mutation warrior the extra limb discovery i can make a Spellcombat+ spell strike action while wielding a one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon (meaning full attack with the two-handed plus 1 extra attack from spell strike)

3.1) If i have ALSO another extra limb, i can make attacks with the two-weapon figthning light off-hand in place of the spell combat action, meaning 1- full attack with the two-handed + off hand, or 2-full attack with the two-handed + 1 extra two-handed attack for spellstrike

3.2) i dont even need 4 limbs, i can have 3 limbs, two wielding a one-handed as a two-handed , let go the grip with one limb to cast spellcombat (as a free action) regrasp to make the atacks (as a free action), while still holding (not attacking) with the light weapon on the 3rd limb

4) Spellstrike only grants me ONE extra attack, no matter how many attacks or rays (With Close Range magus arcana) i can make with the spell

5) Its impossible to use flurry of blows (or unchained) while making a "normal" full-attack action, to add the wild figthning and ligthning strike extra attacks

5.1) and/or spell combat

5.2) And/or two-weapon figthning (unchained flurry)

6) Unchained flurry allows me to use a two-handed weapon dealing 1,5x str on dmg, normal flurry lets me use a two-handed and twf with it, but only...

1. Flurry is still a full attack action, it just needs to be carried out with unarmed strikes or weapons with the Monk special quality.

2. Don't know what these abilities are, a citation would be appreciated.

3X. There is a FAQ that says you can only attack as if you didn't possess the extra limbs in regards to Vestigial Arms. While it doesn't explicitly call out the aforementioned combination, a GM wouldn't be unreasonable to rule a Spell Combat + Two-Handed Full Attack is impossible for the same reason you can't make three claw attacks, even if you have abilities that grant said attacks.

4. Correct. Note you still have to succeed at casting the spell. A failed concentration check means no extra attack.

5X. See #1.

6. That is correct.


"Lightning Strike (Ex)
At 15th level, as part of a full attack, a dervish can make one additional attack. This attack is at the dervish’s highest base attack bonus, but each attack in the round (including the extra one) takes a –2 penalty.

This ability replaces Armor Training 4."

"Wild Fighting (Ex)
At 2nd level, even when not raging, wild ragers often fight with reckless, savage abandon. A wild rager using the full-attack action can make one extra attack per round at her highest base attack bonus. Until the beginning of her next turn, however, she takes a –2 penalty on attack rolls and –4 penalty to AC.

This ability replaces uncanny dodge."


Lightning Strike and Wild Fighting wont stack with Spell Combat. Spell Combat is it's own type of full round action, much like Flurry.

Also, as Darksol notes the alchemist extra limbs don't actually count as extra limbs for most purposes and don't give extra ability to make attacks. As a GM I would definitely rule it doesn't count towards having a free hand.


Claxon wrote:

Lightning Strike and Wild Fighting wont stack with Spell Combat. Spell Combat is it's own type of full round action, much like Flurry.

Also, as Darksol notes the alchemist extra limbs don't actually count as extra limbs for most purposes and don't give extra ability to make attacks. As a GM I would definitely rule it doesn't count towards having a free hand.

Vestigial Arms count as an extra hand for everything except an additional attack. They can hold and use weapons normally, and can be used for anything else that can be done with a normal hand.

Vestigial Arm wrote:
Benefit: The alchemist gains a new arm (left or right) on his torso. The arm is fully under his control and cannot be concealed except with magic or bulky clothing. The arm does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round, though the arm can wield a weapon and make attacks as part of the alchemist’s attack routine (using two-weapon fighting). The arm can manipulate or hold items as well as the alchemist’s original arms (for example, allowing the alchemist to use one hand to wield a weapon, another hand to hold a potion, and the third hand to throw a bomb). The arm has its own “hand” and “ring” magic item slots (though the alchemist can still only wear two rings and two hand magic items at a time).


Claxon wrote:
Lightning Strike and Wild Fighting wont stack with Spell Combat. Spell Combat is it's own type of full round action, much like Flurry.

Wrong. This FAQ states that Spell COmbat does count as a full-attack action, and Flurry of Blows is explicitly called out as a full-attack action (also, this FAQ confirms that Haste works with it, which in case means other effects that merely modify an existing full-attack action also work). Unchained Monk even has it explicitly stated in the Flurry description.

So yes, both Lightning Strike and Wild Fighting stack with both Spell Combat and Flurry of Blows. The latter two can't be combined, though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I knew Haste worked with Spell Combat, but was unaware of the wording of that FAQ. With the way that FAQ is written about Spell Combat "other effects" is unclear, but could easily been seen to include Lightning Strike or Wild Fighting. So I stand corrected on that regard.

What makes you think Lightning Strike and Wild Fighting don't stack?

I agree that they shouldn't, but don't have a precise reason now.


Claxon wrote:

Lightning Strike and Wild Fighting wont stack with Spell Combat. Spell Combat is it's own type of full round action, much like Flurry.

Also, as Darksol notes the alchemist extra limbs don't actually count as extra limbs for most purposes and don't give extra ability to make attacks. As a GM I would definitely rule it doesn't count towards having a free hand.

And for the same reason, Lightning Strike wouldn't stack with Flurry of Blows. FoB is also a different kind of Full Round Action. It isn't a Full Attack.

I know of ways to get a whole bunch of extra attacks, but I don't think these are they.

You could spend a point from your Ki Pool to give yourself an extra attack on your Flurry of Blows.


Claxon wrote:
What makes you think Lightning Strike and Wild Fighting don't stack?

The "latter two" are Spell combat and Flurry of Blows - SC+LS+WF or FoB+LS+WF both work, but SC+FoB doesn't.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

SC FoB won’t stack because both use offhand.
Vestigile arm don’t add an offhand, so you can’t get 3 weapon attack arms from it.


Chained Monk Flurry of Blows wouldn't stack since it functions like Two-Weapon Fighting.

Unchained Flurry of Blows would stack, since any mention of Two-Weapon Fighting is by-and-large removed.


No, unchained FLurry most definitely does not stack with Spell Combat. The latter works as TWF ("This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast"), and unFlurry says "He takes no penalty for using multiple weapons when making a flurry of blows, but he does not gain any additional attacks beyond what’s already granted by the flurry for doing so."

Also, "as a full-attack action" (Flurry) and "As a full-round action" (Spell Combat) are mutually exclusive in itself. It's just like how you can't use Vital Strike and Cleave at the same time, because both are different standard actions.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Yea both chained and unchained don’t stack with Spell Combat.


Derklord wrote:
No, unchained FLurry most definitely does not stack with Spell Combat. The latter works as TWF ("This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast"), and unFlurry says "He takes no penalty for using multiple weapons when making a flurry of blows, but he does not gain any additional attacks beyond what’s already granted by the flurry for doing so."

Well, after reading the full ability, Unchained Flurry doesn't stack with anything other than Haste and Haste-like abilities.

Sooo...RIP in Pepperonis.


Even though Flurry and Spell Combat don't stack, a magus with a quickened spell could still get an extra attack via Spell Strike.


James Risner wrote:

SC FoB won’t stack because both use offhand.

Vestigile arm don’t add an offhand, so you can’t get 3 weapon attack arms from it.

Vestigial Arms adds an extra hand that can be used for any purpose. This can include acting as a primary or off hand (depending on per/round usage).

You can attack with it normally, you just don't get more total attacks than you otherwise would.

Vestigial Arm wrote:
the arm can wield a weapon and make attacks as part of the alchemist’s attack routine

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Volkard Abendroth wrote:
You can attack with it normally, you just don't get more total attacks than you otherwise would.

+1

I used a deeply flawed way to articulate that, which has baggage of other meanings that are far more commonly used.

"don't add an offhand" I meant "additional attack arm".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A magus with Vestigial Arms using Spell Combat with his primary hand and vestigial hand on his weapon has exactly the same number of attacks as a magus performing Spell Combat without a Vestigial Arm.

The difference is not the number of attacks. The difference is the multiplier applied to users strength bonus.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Volkard Abendroth wrote:
The difference is the multiplier applied to users strength bonus.

You get the additional strength by using an offhand. Which means you are using more attacks than a normal person could use.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I wish they had just said, these arms can't be used to attack or factored into your attack but can hold items like shields or potions.

This seems to be in line with what they want from the discovery and would prevent a lot the confusion of what they can and can't do.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Chess Pwn wrote:

I wish they had just said, these arms can't be used to attack or factored into your attack but can hold items like shields or potions.

This seems to be in line with what they want from the discovery and would prevent a lot the confusion of what they can and can't do.

Yea, in the thread they said (SKR) that using the arm for things like Shield (to gain AC) wasn't intended. But since it wasn't strictly prohibited, it was legal but not intended.


James Risner wrote:
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
The difference is the multiplier applied to users strength bonus.

You get the additional strength by using an offhand. Which means you are using more attacks than a normal person could use.

No.

You get a higher strength modifier. The number of attacks remains the same.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Volkard Abendroth wrote:
You get a higher strength modifier. The number of attacks remains the same.

You get the higher strength modifier by using two hands. The use of two hands uses your primary and offhand. The vestigial hands FAQ says you can't gain more attacks than normal, but that really means "you still only have one primary and one offhand."

Therefore, no you may not 2 hand attack and 1 hand attack with a vestigial arm because that is using a primary and two offhand, which you don't have.


Volkard Abendroth wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
The difference is the multiplier applied to users strength bonus.

You get the additional strength by using an offhand. Which means you are using more attacks than a normal person could use.

No.

You get a higher strength modifier. The number of attacks remains the same.

This FAQ implies that any attacks you make should be treated as though you don't have those additional limbs, as stated in the first sentence of the FAQ.

Basically, the discovery is supposed to give you offensive versatility, not offensive ability. So if you can't use a claw and a two-handed weapon without the discovery, you can't use a claw and a two-handed weapon with the discovery.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also, This FAQ makes it clear that if you use two hands to attack with a weapon, you don't get an offhand or second attack.

I know this is the Hands of Effort FAQ a lot of people dislike though.


Wildfighting, lighting strike, and UnFlurry all stack.

Spell combat and TWF neither stack with eachother, nor flurry.

TWf, lightning strike, and Wildfighting stack fine.

Basically, spell combat stacks with nothing (wrong action type), and flurry and twf don't stack.


James Risner wrote:
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
You get a higher strength modifier. The number of attacks remains the same.

You get the higher strength modifier by using two hands. The use of two hands uses your primary and offhand. The vestigial hands FAQ says you can't gain more attacks than normal, but that really means "you still only have one primary and one offhand."

Therefore, no you may not 2 hand attack and 1 hand attack with a vestigial arm because that is using a primary and two offhand, which you don't have.

Extra hands is exactly what Vestigial Arms grants. Extra hands that may be used for any purpose except increasing the total number of attack rolls.

Applying the additional hand to a weapon does not increase the total number of attack rolls, and is therefore well within the purview of the discovery.

TrinitysEnd wrote:

Also, This FAQ makes it clear that if you use two hands to attack with a weapon, you don't get an offhand or second attack.

I know this is the Hands of Effort FAQ a lot of people dislike though.

1. That FAQ is written from the perspective of a character that has only two hands.

FAQ wrote:
as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon

Emphasis mine. Both explicitly applies only when the number looked at is two. The terminology used in the FAQ is non-applicable to creatures with three or more hands.

2. Multi Weapon Fighting, Kasatha, etc. all demonstrate that adding additional physical hands allows this limit to be exceeded by creatures with three or more hands.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Vestigile arms is written from the perspective of someone who still only have two arms (for the purpose of attacks.)

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

The author of the FAQ with the entire design team consensus says that you can’t two hand a sword and make a claw.


James Risner wrote:
The author of the FAQ with the entire design team consensus says that you can’t two hand a sword and make a claw.

That's not exactly right. It's saying no to an unarmed attack not a natural one. Hands of effort and natural weapons don't play well together so I'm not sure pulling out quotes from one solves anything regarding the other. Clearly, natural weapons aren't limited by hands of effort so how can this be used to clearly say a two handed weapon and a bite is ok but a two handed weapon and claw is bad/wrong? We aren't dealing with offhand/second weapon attacks after all.

EDIT and in the same thread, that same person says:

"It's number of attacks. It's not tracking natural attacks vs. manufactured weapon attacks.

As the FAQ says: "The exact same restrictions would apply if your race had claws or you had some other ability to add claws to your limbs: the text of both discoveries says they do not give you any extra attacks per round, whether used as natural weapons, wielding manufactured weapons, or adding natural weapons to a limb that didn't originally have natural weapons."

Nothing in that says you need to be tracking what type of weapon you're making an attack with."


He still couldn't use a claw because the limbs that have claws are occupied wielding a two-handed weapon, but that's beside the point.

The arms can't be used to do something your normal limbs can't in regards to melee combat. If I can't wield a two-handed weapon and claw normally, the discovery shouldn't let me do so.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Graystone, you are one a different point.

My linked post was an interpreted by SKR as an example of making an attack with:
(Primary Hand, Offhand) for two hand sword and offhand for unarmed strike.

The reply said you can not do that.

The Volkard example is identical:
(Offhand) for Spell Combat and (Primary Hand, Offhand) for two hand sword.

So we have explicit and official denial of that via the vestigile FAQ and Hands of effort FAQ.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

He still couldn't use a claw because the limbs that have claws are occupied wielding a two-handed weapon, but that's beside the point.

The arms can't be used to do something your normal limbs can't in regards to melee combat. If I can't wield a two-handed weapon and claw normally, the discovery shouldn't let me do so.

Well that is true. But if the PC had a claw, they could do claw, spell combat (using vestigile), and one hand a sword. At least I believe that is what was ultimately clarified.


Yes, but they would have to carry out the free attack with Spellstrike, otherwise you are using 3+ arms in your attack routine, which is, again, no different than using a two-handed weapon with a claw attack.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Graystone, sorry. I see the confusion. I said “claw” accidentally in the url link title instead of “unarmed strike”.


James Risner wrote:
The author of the FAQ with the entire design team consensus says that you can’t two hand a sword and make a claw.

The response was in reply to an example using a character with two hands.

A character with two hands can swing a sword in one hand and attack with a unarmed strike. A character with two hands cannot use a sword two-handed and make an unarmed strike.

Context:
Nefreet wrote:

A one-armed human can swing a sword for one attack.

With two-weapon fighting he can swing a sword, and make an unarmed strike, for two attacks.
SKR wrote:
The above quote is false, by the way.
Nefreet wrote:

In that particular example I wasn't talking about a two-handed sword.

You can still swing a one-handed sword, and make an unarmed strike with the other hand, yes?

Thank you for all of the Q's and A's. I think that answers all of the questions I'm aware of.

SKR wrote:

Ah, yes, I misread that as two-handing a sword.

You can use one hand for a 1H sword and another limb for an unarmed strike, no problem.

Vestigial Arms was not discussed during the Two-handed fighting discussion. The example and response were both in regards to a character with one - two hands.

The questions in the thread and answers in the thread dealt strictly with the number of attacks

Number of Attacks:
SKR wrote:

I need you to stop mixing in other things and answer just the question I'm presenting to you.

First of all, unarmed strike can't be *any* body part you want. It's undefined for non-monks, but the monk class specifically calls out "a monk's [unarmed] attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet," so it's reasonable that non-monks have to follow a similar restriction (otherwise the non-monk has more versatile unarmed strike options, which is silly).

So a human holding a barrel with his could make a kick or knee unarmed strike (his arms are busy holding the barrel, so no fists or elbows). If he had TWF, he could make two unarmed strikes, one with the left leg and one with the right leg. We know he has to use separate limbs because the revised monk flurry ruling says a monk can use one weapon for all of a flurry, which means it that a special rule for monks and non-flurrying non-monks can't do that.

Now replace the TWF human with a TWF tengu, and get rid of the barrel. The tengu can make two unarmed strikes per round (one with the left leg and one with the right leg), and gets to add his three natural attacks as secondary attacks. That's 5 attacks per round, total. Overall, that puts his attack bonuses at –2 kick/–2 kick/–5 bite/–5 claw/–5 claw. This is a legitimate attack routine.

Now give him the vestigial arm discovery x2. Instead of making two kick attacks, he's making two manufactured weapon attacks. So his total attack routine is weapon/weapon/bite/claw/claw. That's 5 attacks per round, total. This is a legitimate attack routine.

Tengu-A, the two-armed tengu, is making 5 attacks per round.
Tengu-B, the four-armed tengu, is making 5 attacks per round.

Both are valid. The second tengu is not getting any more attacks per round than the first tengu. In other words, the second tengu is not getting any extra attacks per round compared to the first tengu.

Or, to quote the FAQ:
It means "extra," as in "more than you would be able to make if you didn't have that discovery."

Haste and other special effects, if applied to both example characters, should affect them equally. Frex, haste on Tengu A gives it an extra unarmed strike attack per round, haste on Tengu B gives it an extra manufactured weapon attack per round, but both characters are still getting the same number of attacks per round: 5 + 1.

So:

Q: How many attacks per round can the tengu make without the discovery?
A: 5.
Q: How many attacks per round can the tengu make with the discovery?
A: 5.
Q: Is the tengu with the discovery making any extra attacks per round compared to the tengu without?
A: No.
Q: So this doesn't violate the rules?
A: Correct.
Q: What if the four-armed tengu also wants to make unarmed strikes in addition to the two manufactured weapon attacks and the three natural attacks?
A: It can't, because that would put it at 7 attacks per round, which is more than the (two-armed) tengu's 5 attacks per round.

Using Vestigial Arms to increase the number of hands violates neither the Vestigial Arm FAQ/discussion (total number of attacks does not change) nor the Hands of Effort FAQ (only applicable to creatures with two hands).

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Reread that thread. It’s explicily identical to your assertion.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Yes, but they would have to carry out the free attack with Spellstrike, otherwise you are using 3+ arms in your attack routine, which is, again, no different than using a two-handed weapon with a claw attack.

There is no rule barring usage of three or more arms in an attack routine. The only rule is that Vestigial Arms may not increase total number of attacks.

The Vestigial Arms discussion, and SKR's official response, includes a specific example of a tengu alchemist with a legal dagger/dagger/claw/claw/bite attack routine, where the daggers are used by vestigial arms and the claws are on normal hands

The complete example by SKR is in my prior post.

Another example would be character with three or more attacks. Each of those attacks could be made by a different hand, including the Vestigial Arm.

SKR wrote:

So:

Q: How many attacks per round can the tengu make without the discovery?
A: 5.
Q: How many attacks per round can the tengu make with the discovery?
A: 5.
Q: Is the tengu with the discovery making any extra attacks per round compared to the tengu without?
A: No.
Q: So this doesn't violate the rules?
A: Correct.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Volkard Abendroth wrote:
The complete example by SKR is in my prior post

That is not complete. He didn’t cover a two handed weapon in his examples. He did in my linked post.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

The vestigile FAQ combined with Hands of Effort FAQ clarify a PC has one primary and one offhand plus some number of natural weapons.

You can’t depend more than one primary and one offhand in attacks with or without vestigile.

You can’t use an offhand feature like Spell Combat or TWF if you are using your offhand already.


James Risner wrote:
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
The complete example by SKR is in my prior post
That is not complete. He didn’t cover a two handed weapon in his examples. He did in my linked post.

I included the complete discussion about two-handed weapons under the heading "Context".

The discussion about two-handed weapons involved an example character that did not have Vestigial Arms.

In context, that discussion has no bearing on this one.


No.

If you read the FAQ here:

Spoiler:
http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qw9

It says once you have made two hands of effort, you're done.

Spoiler:
http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fz#v5748eaic9rc5

Says "does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round."

Your interpretation would make the alchemist eligible for extra attacks. It is therefor against the rules.


Perfect Tommy wrote:

No.

It says once you have made two hands of effort, you're done.

Quote:

It means "extra," as in "more than you would be able to make if you didn't have that discovery."

For example, if you're low-level alchemist who uses two-weapon fighting, you can normally make two attacks per round (one with each weapon). If you take the tentacle discovery, on your turn you can make
* two weapon attacks but no tentacle attack,
* a weapon attack with your left hand plus a secondary tentacle attack, or
* a weapon attack with your right hand plus a secondary tentacle attack.
At no time can you make a left hand weapon attack, a right hand weapon attack, and a tentacle attack on the same turn because the tentacle discovery says it "does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round." This language is calling out that the tentacle is not a standard natural weapon and doesn't follow the standard rules for using natural weapons (which would normally allow you to make the natural weapon attack in addition to your other attacks).

Likewise, if you instead took the vestigial arm discovery and put a weapon in that arm's hand, on your turn you can make
* a weapon attack with your left hand and one with your right hand,
* a weapon attack with your right hand and one with your vestigial arm, or
* a weapon attack with your left hand and one with your vestigial arm,
At no time can you make a left hand weapon attack, a right hand weapon attack, and a vestigial hand weapon attack on the same turn because the vestigial arm discovery says it "does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round."
The exact same restrictions would apply if your race had claws or you had some other ability to add claws to your limbs: the text of both discoveries says they do not give you any extra attacks per round, whether used as natural weapons, wielding manufactured weapons, or adding natural weapons to a limb that didn't originally have natural weapons.

Remember that these two discoveries do not have any level requirements, and therefore are not especially powerful; permanently adding additional attacks per round is beyond the scope of a discovery available to 2nd-level alchemists.

Emphasis mine.

It says the number of attacks made may not be increased. Nothing in the FAQ stops you from using the extra arms to increase the damage multiplier on existing attacks.

Nothing in the FAQ addresses "Hands-of-Effort", the only issue addressed is the total number of attacks made.

A character with a longsword in one hand and a dagger in the other can make 2 attacks.

A character with a Vestigial Arm using the same weapons can make the same number of attacks (2), but he, literally, has an extra hand that can grip the longsword, increasing the damage multiplier to x1.5

Quote:

Says "does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round."

Your interpretation would make the alchemist eligible for extra attacks. It is therefor against the rules.

The number of attacks stays the same. The difference is the damage multiplier. Vestigial Arms are permitted to hold and use weapons as long the total number of attacks made do not change.

Vestigial Arm wrote:
the arm can wield a weapon and make attacks as part of the alchemist’s attack routine

The Hands-of-Effort FAQ also fails to address characters with three or more arms.

FAQ wrote:
Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.

Emphasis mine.

Both:
1. used to refer to two people or things, regarded and identified together.
"both his parents indulged him"

The Hands-of-Effort FAQ is non-applicable to characters and creatures with three or more hands. This is a good things, as many existing creatures and races would be broken if the FAQ was all inclusive.


James Risner wrote:
The vestigile FAQ combined with Hands of Effort FAQ clarify a PC has one primary and one offhand plus some number of natural weapons.

For me, I'd like to see something clarifying how 'hands of effort' interacts with creatures with more than 2 arms.

James Risner wrote:
You can’t use an offhand feature like Spell Combat or TWF if you are using your offhand already.

Spell combat is using a free hand though, not an offhand. Magus' spell combat is a strange mix of two weapon combat and casting and I'm not sure we can apply the usual 'offhand' usage to spell casting. Really the whole thing is odd as you still need a free hand even with no somatics.

This, like a lot of rules, could stand an 'update' in light of the 'made from whole cloth' 'hands of effort' FAQ to explain the ramifications of that FAQ's adding a new kind of 'hand' to the mix.


graystone wrote:
James Risner wrote:
The vestigile FAQ combined with Hands of Effort FAQ clarify a PC has one primary and one offhand plus some number of natural weapons.
For me, I'd like to see something clarifying how 'hands of effort' interacts with creatures with more than 2 arms.

That's already done with Multiweapon Fighting, saying you get one main hand and everything else is off-hand, and the Improved and Greater TWF feats add one attack with the listed penalties.

Even then, it doesn't clarify that vestigial arms don't count as actual arms for the purposes of wielding weapons more than you normally could.

As to the FAQ, while it refers to number of attacks, and says nothing about how the attacks are carried out, I'm of the opinion that it's not intended to function by wielding weapons more than if you didn't have the discovery.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
already done with Multiweapon Fighting, saying you get one main hand and everything else is off-hand, and the Improved and Greater TWF feats add one attack with the listed penalties.

It gives off hands but does it also give more hands of effort? I've seen opinions on both sides.

Then does using up your hands of effort also use up all your free/off hands? Say like spell combat with a vestigial arm as spell combat doesn't use an offhand but a free hand. Does attacking with a boulder helmet/unarmed strike and a longsword prevent you from using your other hand as a free hand for deflect arrows? And if it doesn't, why is one free hand requirement different than another?


graystone wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
already done with Multiweapon Fighting, saying you get one main hand and everything else is off-hand, and the Improved and Greater TWF feats add one attack with the listed penalties.

It gives off hands but does it also give more hands of effort? I've seen opinions on both sides.

Then does using up your hands of effort also use up all your free/off hands? Say like spell combat with a vestigial arm as spell combat doesn't use an offhand but a free hand. Does attacking with a boulder helmet/unarmed strike and a longsword prevent you from using your other hand as a free hand for deflect arrows? And if it doesn't, why is one free hand requirement different than another?

Logically speaking, if it didn't give more hands of effort, MWF would be a superficial option that does absolutely nothing, as evidenced by the Normal line in the feat description, and it would be the Prone Shooter of the whole feat chain. Funnily enough, vestigial arms wouldn't let you qualify for that feat and attack option, though, which is the big hangup on why I'd veto the two-handed weapon + claw combo.

As for the first question, normally yes. But vestigial arms are a special case where they count as arms for holding and using certain things in certain ways, so holding them to the same Hands of Effort rules as other, full-fledged arms, doesn't make sense rules-wise when they weren't designed like that.

To your second question, no. The reason being is because hands of effort aren't the same as real hands. When a mechanic asks for a free hand, they are referring to a real hand. When a mechanic refers to main hand/offhand, they are referring to hands of effort. In this case, a vestigial arm counts as a real hand. But not for making and carrying out attacks, as described in the description and FAQ.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Magus, Monk, Figther and Barbarian "extra attacks" stacking All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.