That Dang Paladin's page

Finoan wrote:

moosher12 wrote:

So, today is game day and we're winding up for my Kingmaker game, and I just told my Pathfinder 2E players about how the new Multi-Arm rules work, and boy are they rioting.

So have them make accounts and come here and explain their reasoning for their rioting.

Currently in my mind these people are hypothetical, not actually existent. They likely do exist, but I have no evidence of that. And they should be able to speak for themselves.

And if the reasoning is that they want a power bump that they can use in the Kingmaker game by somehow getting multiple arms on their character, then while that is a valid reason to riot that they aren't getting what they want, it isn't a valid reason for the game developers to change the game rules to give them what they want instead of giving me what I want - which is multi-armed characters that don't break the game balance.

My players are coming.

WELL, WE'RE WAITING, WHAT SAY YOU SIR!? DO I NOT EXIST, AM I NOT A MAN WHO THINKS, BREATHES, AND EATS!?

WHAT SAY YOU!?

It just makes no sense to me that you would do this, when the action economy already ensures that you're not really able to abuse having multiple arms.

Even if you have four arms... you only have three actions.

So what? What does that hurt? If I had two arms, I could still make three attacks in a round. Is the fear that a player with four arms is going to carry two extra weapons that make them overly specified for the combat? Is the fear they'll wield three and a shield?

Again. So what? That makes it a cool and unique ancestry ability that gives you a very marginal advantage, just like all the other cool and unique ancestry abilities. Hell, wield four shields! Wield three revolvers and use your third to reload! Wield two shields and two spears and become a one-alien turtle formation.

Let. People. Have. Fun.

Or what is even the point?

THE ROMAN EMPIRE LIVES ON!

Finoan wrote:

moosher12 wrote:

So, today is game day and we're winding up for my Kingmaker game, and I just told my Pathfinder 2E players about how the new Multi-Arm rules work, and boy are they rioting.

So have them make accounts and come here and explain their reasoning for their rioting.

Currently in my mind these people are hypothetical, not actually existent. They likely do exist, but I have no evidence of that. And they should be able to speak for themselves.

And if the reasoning is that they want a power bump that they can use in the Kingmaker game by somehow getting multiple arms on their character, then while that is a valid reason to riot that they aren't getting what they want, it isn't a valid reason for the game developers to change the game rules to give them what they want instead of giving me what I want - which is multi-armed characters that don't break the game balance.

My friends are coming.

Alright, I already have an account; I've been here a long, long while. I've complained about many idiotic, pedantic, moronic, and stupid things that your set of folks love to do.

So, go sound yourself with a pineapple, I don't even want to use the Four-Armed rule. I like my character with two.

The operational purpose of Four-Armed was to enable Multi-Weapon fighting. Gutting it is pointless, if you're so worried about balance why bother having characters with four arms? Just have everyone have two, don't put a badly worded, badly implemented rule- Oh, sorry, as for my reasoning? It's that the action economy for it is pointless. An action to switch arms? What, is the Kasatha you're playing deficient mentally? Do they not understand how their bodies work?

It's like flying with you people, flying doesn't change anything- just shoot the flyer with arrows or spells.

I'd rather you not include multiple limbs at all if you're that scared to let them use their bodies properly. Like flying.

The FAQ pre-dated the errata (from a couple months ago) that changed the Massive Weapons rule to allow this.

I SHALL NOT PASS... Reading and Comprehension...

Thank you.

The FAQ, which has a statement about the Titan Mauler barbarian Archetype twice. The first being 'Jotungrip' which is used with the exact wording and has no issues... The second is- thus:

"Can a Medium titan mauler wield a Large two-handed weapon, such as a Large greatsword?

No. The "Inappropriately Sized Weapons" rule says (in summary) that a creature can't wield an inappropriately-sized weapon if the size difference would increase it one or more "steps" beyond "two-handed." None of the titan mauler's abilities say the character can break the "steps" part of the "Inappropriately Sized Weapons" rule, so the character still has to follow that rule."

Which is then completely contradicted by the RAW of their secondary ability which replaced the ever so useful 'Trap Sense'

"Massive Weapons (Ex)

At 3rd level, a titan mauler becomes skilled in the use of massive weapons looted from her titanic foes.

She can use --two-handed weapons meant for creatures one size category larger--, but the penalty for doing so is increased by 4--. However, the attack roll penalty for using weapons too large for her size is reduced by 1, and this reduction increases by 1 for every three levels beyond 3rd (to a minimum of 0).
This ability replaces trap sense."

Note the section 'highlighted' by the double hyphens?

This means that, in essence, they not only can, but they incorperate this into their archetype. I'm not saying they can use them one-handed; although this seems to have been meant to be the case with how eventually the weapon is 'appropriately sized' later on.

I am submitting this complaint; because it's painfully obvious that no one read the archetype/caught this the first time around. And I'd like to bring it to light.

Are you saying your RAW is not right? That a Barbarian gives up their ability to sense traps, for something that's basically *USELESS* because of the Inappropriately Sized Weapons Rule? If that's the case, it must be the same for the Titan Fighter; who *also* can use those weapons sized larger. Meaning that you have produced *TWO* archetypes that cannot be used due to your FAQ.