Right so recently we had a thread here about two weapon fighting and rapid shot on thrown weapons... this got me thinking and I realized we were going to have many more problems with two weapon fighting with the APG than might have been anticapted (I hope not).
For example:
Multi armed Eidolon two weapon fighting with two two handed weapons (two greatswords for example... what would the penalties be).
Another slight issue (very slight the rules as written currently can handle this) is the four armed summoner (using the points you can take from your eidolon... or letting your Eidolon do it for you) using two light crossbows at the same time with the rapid shot feat... at higher level using three light crossbows (with six arms) and multi attack, multi weapon fighting etc.
The real issue I see is the multi arm with multiple weapons of various handiness (maralith with a glaive, longbow tower shield and long sword for example).
Multi armed Eidolon two weapon fighting with two two handed weapons (two greatswords for example... what would the penalties be).
The Two Weapon Fighting Feat only references whether the weapon in the off-hand is light or not, so (assuming the Eidolon has TWF) I would say that the penalties are -4/-4.
It would be logical to house-rule it to -6/-6, on the theory that each step from light adds an additional -2 penalty. However, I think that dual wielding greatswords is going to be worse than using two short swords in the last two arms. The short swords have a net +2 to hit and both will do 2d6 damage if all of the attacks hit. So the only possible advantage of the greatsword is increased strength damage (but see below), increased power attack damage or fewer weapons to spend money on.
A better question is how much of a strength bonus to damage it gets. I would say that it gets 1x strength. That could be each hand gives it 1/2x strength or an off-hand weapon decreases the strength multiplier by 1/2. However, I'm pretty sure that there is not a clear statement in the rules about this.
OTOH, dual wielding a great sword and a reach trip weapon could be interesting.
See I'm generally of the opinion it should simply be the same as the one handed weapon (for penalty). The reasoning is due to the fact you are using the extra hand which helps to provide the leverage to use it correctly.
On the Str end of it I would like to see the off hand at str mod without dropping it further, and power attacking (which is possible) to be 2x instead of the 1x.
The Eidolon would be wielding two-weapons, ie, fighting with two weapons that are not light. So -4/-4
I would point out than any Eidolon could easily be constructed as to have multiple limbs that would not interfere with each other. Consider a hydra-like creature with multiple torsos, or something with arms around it's body instead of just at the shoulders... perhaps even a set of arms out of the back. The possibilities are not limited to just human like humanoids or the such (consider the sheer number of "oddly" shaped creatures in all mythologies and this consideration becomes even a bigger issue).
Besides, if you're going to throw out reality a base reference, then why not assume that all "normal" humans have amorphous bodies that can form any shape they choose or that gravity only works when you want it to? In fact, why use any rules at all? Who needs dice? We'll just have story time & forget about the game element altogether. I think the old saying; "Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should" applies really well to this.
Logical fallacy -- slippery slope.
Logical fallacy -- slippery slope.
HAHAHAHAHA! I KNEW you would bring logic up!! And my response to THAT would be this is a MESSAGEboard for MESSAGES, not a logic board!
P.S. Cartigan, +1. Don't over think it.
Logical fallacy -- slippery slope.HAHAHAHAHA! I KNEW you would bring logic up!! And my response to THAT would be this is a MESSAGEboard for MESSAGES, not a logic board!
P.S. Cartigan, +1. Don't over think it.
Actually it's a rules forum. and his argument doesn't actually carry any water. The thought that because an eidolon has a mutable form you have to give everything a mutable form, and therefore why even bother with rules doesn't work for a couple of reasons:
1. The eidolon has a specific entry that gives it the mutable form that almost nothing else has.
2. Everything else has a declared form and lacks the mutable form ability that is given to the eidolon.
3. Several monsters already in the pathfinder system can already do these things of which I have asked in this thread. As such the problem was already there it was just avoidable since the creatures in question were only useable by a GM and he could simply not use them. Now that the ability is available for players within the standard rule structure the ability to simply ignore the problem is compromised. As such it needs addressed as to forestall the issue from interupting the game in multiple ways and at multiple levels.
My point is, don't over think it.
What actual issue is there with the two-handed weapons?
You don't get any extra attacks unless you take more feats, so all we are talking about is how much strength damage to apply. 1.5 primary and either .5 or .75 (half of 1.5) off hand. DM's call.
Power attack doesn't change your strength mod, just the damage added by power attack changes.
Remember, if you attack with 4 claws you get a total strength mod x 4 of damage, compared with 2 or 2.25 using the two weapons.
I would think using a 2-handed weapon in one hand would be subject to the same and/or similar rules of inappropriately sized weapons. Just my 2 cents.