|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Is it possible? I can see how it can possibly done, but the feat itself confuses me in the way two-weapon fighting works.
Example: kukri/kukri/blade boot/Barbazu Beard/unarmed strike
That is more than two weapons, but only two arms. I find the the use of the word "hand" in the feat to be annoying. The use of "arms" even more so. A naga can two weapon fight with armor spikes and unarmed strikes, but still, no hands. Please help, these rules word usages are driving me nuts!
By the way, this my first post ever, be gentle.
BURN THE TROLL!
Oh, wait, he wants to be treated nice. Well, just this once.
Anything other than real arms isn't really useful for Multiweapon Fighting and the advantages this brings.
Meaning: If you fight with several weapons on your arms, you get to get multiple attacks with those weapons. If you use stuff like some weird fatal joke article like a barbazu beard or a blade boot, you only get one extra attack.
If you want more than two weapons with all the niceties that go along with it, get more arms. Otherwise, you basically get natural attacks or something close to it, which will only grant you one attack.
And that's good. Just imagine dragons getting Multiweapon Fighting for their claws and wings and bite. The GM would spend three solid hours making all the attack rolls, and after that, all heroes are dead, turned into a fine, crimson mist.
|
|
Yes, I suppose there may be the air of cheese. This is still a problem in the use of the word "hands" and "arms". One could combine two kukris and an unarmed strike, or a greatsword, a blade boot, and an unarmed strike. These are all achieved without 3+ arms, and if this is still only two weapon fighting, should they not all be altered by the two weapon fighting feat with reduced penalties? To me, multiweapon fighting, is simply fighting with more than two weapons, something achievable by those without 3+ limbs.
Note that monks, who are assumed to attack with arms, hands, feet, knees, legs, toes, fingers, elbows, heads, hips, ears, hair, and probably genitals, don't get extra attacks for each of their limbs they use to attack.
|
|
I am not speaking of an attack for each limb, all I am saying is that it is possible to multiweapon fight (2+ weapons) and not have more than two arms. Two weapon fighting, and Multiweapon fighting work the same. In the description of multiweapon fighting, it states it replaces two weapon fighting for those with 3 or more arms. What I trying to understand is, if one can two weapon fight with no arms, why can they not multiweapon fight with two, or can they? Does doing so require the two weapon fighting feat, or multiweapon fighting feat to reduce penalties? If 6th level Ranger Rick decides after swinging his two kukris on the first two attacks, that he then wants to just kick his enemy, is he two weapon fighting, or multiweapon fighting? What if he wants to instead use his blade boot rather than just a regular kick him, is two weapon, or multiweapon fighting? Does his two weapon fighting feat effect this attack in reducing it's penalty? Is he effectively multiweapon fighting, or is he still two weapon fighting? I am not sure how this plays out RAW. I am not trying say each limb adds an extra attack, there is no doubt that no one gets 4 attacks simply because they have two arms and two legs, that's not even close. Limbs do not add attacks, rather each weapon does, and when there is more than two, that you can effectively wield, you are multiweapon fighting. No matter the limbs.
I am not speaking of an attack for each limb, all I am saying is that it is possible to multiweapon fight (2+ weapons) and not have more than two arms.
And I'm saying that it's not. You might get more attacks with other limbs, but they don't get the same status as attacks with actual arms.
Limbs do not add attacks, rather each weapon does, and when there is more than two, that you can effectively wield, you are multiweapon fighting. No matter the limbs.
Actually I think its neither limbs or weapons that add attacks. The number of attacks come from your BAB and feats such as two-weapon fighting. Just because you can equip yourself with 3 (or 30) weapons doesn't mean you have the capability to use them all in the same round. That comes from experience and training which is what BAB and feats (like TWF) represent.
|
|
That is somewhat untrue, as the naga (no arms) can two weapon fight with an unarmed strike, and armor spikes. It is also true that one does not need the two weapon fighting feat to two weapon fight, the feat simply reduces penalties. As I stated, the ability to fight with multiple weapons is not so much keyed to the number of limbs, but the ability to wield, and attack with said weapons. This is indeed often done through the power of said limbs, but it is not required with all weapons. So, when one wields, and attacks, with more than two weapons, and does not have 3+ arms, how then does this interact with the said two weapon, and multiweapon fighting rules and feats?
Well the way I rule it (and I believe RAW backs me up) is that your standard creature* can attack with any 2 given manufactured weapons (or unarmed strikes) in any given round, regardless of how many that they actually wield. One is your 'primary hand'** and one is your 'off-hand' and rules from BAB and two-weapon fighting (feats) affect the number of attacks you can make with either one.
Example you have a fighter with a longsword in his 'primary' hand a dagger in his 'off-hand' and a boot blade. The fighter can attack with his 'primary' weapon, the longsword, based on his BAB and can make 'off-hand' attacks with either his dagger OR his boot blade (not both).
*there are certain creatures that break this general rule by having more 'arms' than is normal and the multiweapon fighting feat is specifically for them. i.e. this is an exception to the general rule.
**this isn't to be confused with natural attacks in which some are 'primary' and some are 'secondary', to which the multiattack feat addresses.
|
|
I see, the language is peculiar, and I understand why you would rule as such, simplicity. The thing is, there does not seem to be such restriction. Of course one could rule yes, you can attack with all said weapons, but as you are multiweapon fighting, you suffer full penalties, as it different from two weapon fighting, and as you do not have the multiweapon fighting feat, nor the ability to obtain it, you will continue to do so. One could rule the alleviated penalties only apply to the first two, as the feat was intended for use with only two weapons. I also see the flaws in use of limbs, as prerequisite, for not all said limbs are required to be able to wield weapons. In fact, a tiefling, using the alternate tiefling rules (council of thieves) could have a vestigial limb, qualifying for the multiweapon fighting feat, yet only two would be usable. This too, is where many complications of the use of "hands" and "limbs" in these rules wordings become a bit troubling.
That is somewhat untrue, as the naga (no arms) can two weapon fight with an unarmed strike, and armor spikes.
I don't know where your getting your information on the Naga's attacks, but they all have a bite attack and one of them has a sting attack, which fall under the category of natural weapon attacks. Natural weapons hae their own rules and don't apply to the feat of which your speaking about.
It is also true that one does not need the two weapon fighting feat to two weapon fight, the feat simply reduces penalties. As I stated, the ability to fight with multiple weapons is not so much keyed to the number of limbs, but the ability to wield, and attack with said weapons. This is indeed often done through the power of said limbs, but it is not required with all weapons. So, when one wields, and attacks, with more than two weapons, and does not have 3+ arms, how then does this interact with the said two weapon, and multiweapon fighting rules and feats?
The D20 system is inherently flawed as to using multiple parts of your body as a weapon in the same round, there is no RAW rule that can help you in this situation, the best you can do is house rule it so that your supposed ranger Rick with a melee weapon in each hand and a blade boot can attack with all of them in the same round.
|
|
That is somewhat untrue, as the naga (no arms) can two weapon fight with an unarmed strike, and armor spikes.I don't know where your getting your information on the Naga's attacks, but they all have a bite attack and one of them has a sting attack, which fall under the category of natural weapon attacks. Natural weapons hae their own rules and don't apply to the feat of which your speaking about.
A naga with wearing armor spikes, can attack, with an unarmed strike and the armor spikes. Whether he decides to use his bite or sting is unimportant. What is important to the example is that with the armor spikes and unarmed strike, he is two weapon fighting, with no limbs.
No
Multi weapon fighting without three arms<--- Is it possible.
No.
From a rules perspective hand means hand. your foot is not a hand, so no, you can't qualify for the feat.
From a gaming perspective cheese is usually bad and this is out and out Limburger.
|
|
Two weapon fighting without the feat is clearly within the rules. It comes with heavy penalties, but it still possible. It stands to reason that even without the multiweapon fighting feat, one could multiweapon fight, albeit at a heavy penalty. I am unsure though, as to how it would interact with the two weapon fighting feat. I am also unsure as to how it would interact with other feats. I know some are somewhat focused on the "cheese" factor as you say, but this a game where you can sack tap a giant (dirty trick), and a gorrila can wield his father's mwk greatsword (additional traits, heirloom weapon, druid companion), this is simply another slice. If you are personally against it, I understand, but my questions lie within the rules, and preference is really not a factor.
It sounds like what you're trying to do is get (or allow) more attacks per round and the rules just arn't going to back you up there.
If you're attacking with a manufactured weapon or unarmed strike (i.e. not a natural weapon) then your number of attacks per round is limited by your BAB. Your 'off-hand' attack is limited to 1 per round unless you have the improved and/or greater two-weapon fighting feats.
The only other way to get extra attacks per round is through magic.
I see where you're coming from but this is an instance where the game rules diverge from reality for ease of play and balance issues.
You do not qualify for the multiweapon fighting feat because of the wording. However, you could still make attacks with your other weapon (boot blade).
Let's say you had TWF and wielded two kukri. You are at -2/-2 with those weapons. You suffer the normal -10 penalty if you decide to add an attack from your boot blade.
Alternatively you could attack with kukri/bootblade at -2/-2 but your attack with your other kukri would then be at -10.
Your DM would have to create a houserule for multiweapon fighting to work with this.
|
|
Game balance aside, I truly believe that it is silly that a tiefling, with a worthless limb, is by a technicality, able to do this, where as a dual kukri wielding orc ranger with liking to kicking things, is not.
Really though, it is a terrible idea as a build, of any kind, perhaps strong very early, then horribly weak later. This makes that one extra limb a massive advantage, for example the 3 Int Girrilon with a missing limb has: kukri/kukri/kukri/blade boot/blade boot/barbazu beard/unarmed strike/bite and his BAB need not even be 6+ nor does he even need the multiweapon fighting feat.
If it can be done within the rules, I will find it, eventually.
for example the 3 Int Girrilon with a missing limb has: kukri/kukri/kukri/blade boot/blade boot/barbazu beard/unarmed strike/bite and his BAB need not even be 6+ nor does he even need the multiweapon fighting feat.
I don't know what makes you think a Girallon could do all that.
A Girallon
+7 BAB, 19 Str, Large Size, typically Bite +10, 4 Claws +10 ea
However say your gimped Girallon (missing limb) were to attack with kukris, blade boots and a barbazu beard (I wouldn't allow the unarmed strike as you're out of extremities, I also wouldn't allow the bite because the barbazu covers your face).
Without multi-weapon fighting he'd get 6 attacks:
Kukri +6,+2,+1 (primary, off-hand, primary); Claw +1, Bite +1
Remember multi-weapon penalties stack with secondary natural attack penalties.
With multi-weapon fighting - 7 attacks:
Kukri +8,+8,+8,+3 (p,o-h,o-h,p), Boot-Blade +8,+8 barbazu +8
Anything else is a sever bending of the RAW.
Also, personally I think its 5 natural attacks at +10 is more effective (though I'm no math wiz).
Two-weapon fighting means that you can do only one off-hand attack. Such an attack can be made with either your actual off hand weapon, your leg (unarmed attack), your armor spikes, or the so-called boot blade (of which I haven't found the stats). So, you have two arms, but elect to either use both, or one plus a strange thing. The TWF feat alleviates the attack penalties, and I/GTWF give more off-hand attacks but only if your BAB is high enough that your primary hand is already able to make that many attacks.
Multiweapon Fighting belongs to the Bestiary, so it's not usually available for PCs. It's made specifically for those creatures with more than two hands and able to use weapons in them. Such creatures seldom progress in their number of attacks due to BAB, so their high number of attacks doesn't suddenly double or triple unlike regular PCs. So, either you play a PC with an increasing number of attacks, or you play a monster with a fixed number. You can't have your cheese and eat it too.
Barring house-rules, magic, and/or specific items, that's what the rules mean.
If you really want your regular humanoid-shaped character to attack with two kukris, a bearded thingy, an unarmed strike, and a bladed boot, that's 5 attacks.
AFAIK, the rules only allow this through one of the following cases:
- you have a BAB of +16 which means you can do 4 attacks, and you use TWF or Haste for a fifth
- you have a BAB of +11 and use TWF and Haste, or Improved TWF
- you have a BAB of +6 and use ITWF and Haste
Which means that either you are an accomplished combatant who can already do multiple attacks, or you have magical help.
And, speaking as a convicted cheesemonger here, too: don't ask the boards for advice on something you repeatedly push forward, it's like forcing your opinion on us. You spoke. We spoke, even giving hints about the fact that bending rules means creating house-rules. If you don't agree, we can "agree to disagree" and move on.
Addendum: if you have an item/ability/power/trait that gives you a natural attack, such as a Bite, this comes in addition to your regular iterative attacks. Barring Flurry (which specifically disallows this), you can use your natural attacks as secondary (-5).
For instance, a 11th-level Barbarian with the Animal Fury Rage Power and the TWF feat would attack at +11 (primary hand) / +11 (off-hand) / +6 (primary or off-hand) / +6 (bite) / +1 (primary or off-hand).
A Sorcerer 10/Dragon Disciple 2 using his Claws and TWF/ITWF would be able to make 7 attacks: 4 iterative attacks (not using his hands, so that means something like unarmed kicks/elbows/headbutts, boot blade, or bearded thingy - provided that this last one doesn't forbids him from using his Bite) at +6/+6/+1/+1, 2 claws at +1/+1 and one bite at +1.
Consider this: Forget about weapons altogether, because unarmed strikes use the same rules as weapons (NOT the same ones as natural attacks). That means any weapon attack in any attack sequence could be replaced by an unarmed strike. How many weapons does someone with Improved Unarmed Strike (so they don't provoke) have? Does a 1st level commoner with IUS as his one feat really get to say "I punch, punch, elbow, elbow, kick, kick, knee, knee, headbutt, and shoulder check him for 1d3 damage each, for 10d3 damage"?
And before anyone argues that it's different with weapons so my prior point doesn't matter, does it make sense for a 1st level commoner to say "I punch with my spiked gauntlet, then my other spiked gauntlet, shove the spikes on my elbows through them, kick with two blade boots, knee-spike them with each knee, headbutt (unarmed), and then shoulder check them onto my shoulder spikes"? Because that's exactly the same attack sequence, except the commoner put on some spiked armor.
-------------
Now that I have that out of my system:
Iterative attacks represent being well-trained enough to be able to make multiple meaningful attacks in the 6 second window of a turn. It doesn't matter what those attacks are, but you're limited to them. There are two exceptions to this rule: Natural attacks and off-hand attacks.
Natural attacks represent the formidable array of innate weapons some creatures have. As anyone who has tried to pick up an unwilling cat can tell you, animals are coordinated enough to claw and bite you simultaneously. In the naga example, that would be their bite attack - not an unarmed strike.
Off-hand attacks represent the same concept as patting your head and rubbing your belly at the same time. You can have both hands doing different things, but you have to think about it. That's why you only get one off-hand attack, and at such massive penalties - you have to really think about what both hands are doing, and swinging weapons is even harder than rubbing/patting. Strapping more weapons on you doesn't make you any better at doing something, so you don't get more attacks for more weapons.
Now the feats: The Two-weapon fighting feat is equivalent to training in patting your head and rubbing your belly. It still takes effort, but it's much closer to being trivial. The Improved and Greater feats represent turning some of your extensive combat skill (high BAB) towards doing useful things with that other hand. It still doesn't let simply adding weapons to yourself give you more attacks - it just gives you more chances to use a weapon.
Multi-weapon fighting specifically involves coordinating three or more hands. A naga doesn't qualify - they only get their natural bite attack, and maybe normal iterative attacks with armor spikes. They don't even gain any benefit from TWF. A three-armed girallon still has to coordinate three arms, and so can take the feat. Note that they only get one attack with each of the non-primary arms. A two-armed girallon would take TWF instead, and could take a lesser penalty with it (-2 instead of -4), because he has less arms to keep track of. It basically is equivalent to bumping each arm's weapon up to the status of "natural attack". The only reason there isn't "three-weapon fighting" "four-weapon fighting" and so on is to avoid feat bloat.
|
|
I like the idea of a creature being able to multiweapon fight due to the ability to coordinate such attacks, not just have an extra limb. As I stated earlier with the tiefling example, it is possible for a player to get the multiweapon fighting feat.
I know that unarmed strikes are not a gateway to a billion attacks, and I have never said so. I do note that any creature with a strength score can take advantage of an unarmed strike, no matter the limb count.
Thus a naga can use both armor spikes, and an unarmed strike.
I also am not mentioning natural attacks, because I am not talking about them or their interaction with weapon attacks.
Note: unarmed strikes are not natural attacks.
What is unsaid, is what allows one to coordinate 2+ weapon attacks.
Is it solely limb count? Why? What if one has two heads, but one arm?
I see how one would like to keep this out of hands of PCs, but when can one multiweapon fight (not the feat mind you), and when can one not?
If this were given a hard line to which I could wrap my head around, I would not even ask.
BAB seems awkward in this realm as far as explanation, for the low BAB first level character can two weapon fight, without any feats to do so, just at hefty penalty.
Two weapon fighting, and Multiweapon fighting.
Who can, and can't, and most importantly, why?
As I stated earlier with the tiefling example, it is possible for a player to get the multiweapon fighting feat.
Huh? Why can tieflings get it? Or what did the one specific tiefling have that let him get it?
I do note that any creature with a strength score can take advantage of an unarmed strike, no matter the limb count.
Thus a naga can use both armor spikes, and an unarmed strike.
It's true, but it's usually useless. A large creature does 1d4+str on an unarmed attack, and provokes for doing so.
Two weapon fighting, and Multiweapon fighting.
Who can, and can't, and most importantly, why?
In the end it comes down to game balance. They created the rules they way they did to prevent absurdities, and it's entirely possible that it doesn't make any real-life sense (I like to point to initiative order for a good example of it). I don't have any better answer than that.