Alchemist "Vestigial Arm" discovery question


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 388 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
I think something like "you gain X as an additional natural attack" vs. "you may use X as a natural attack in place of an existing manufactured weapon attack or unarmed strike" would help.

That would definitely solve the issues with how you get Natural Attacks.

If you could add a bit of clarification on when you can take feats that affect them and how they interact with weapon enchants and gear(amulets of mighty fist: speed or defending), doing damage to them (Sunder, disarm) and of course how to upgrade them.


Hey Sean while we've got you

just to put a min/max build down on paper does this work

For example

ferral mutagen + 2 x vestigal arms + two weapon fighting

the ferral mutagen turns two of your 4 hands into claws, leaving you two other hands free for holding weapons.

because your allowed to mix natural with weapon attacks you get your normal attack routine in this case TWF and get all your natural attacks at -5

so say BAB of 6, improved TWF light wep offhand

+4/+4/-1/-1 wep attacks plus +1/+1/+1 bite claw claw

maxed out

BAB 15, greater TWF, multiattack, haste

+13/+13/+13/+8/+8/+3/+3 weapons plus +13/+13/+13 bite claw claw

thoughts?
thanks

Shadow Lodge

I think he pretty clearly spelled out that the intent was that the vestigial arms were not intended to be useful for making attacks of any sort.


0gre wrote:
I think he pretty clearly spelled out that the intent was that the vestigial arms were not intended to be useful for making attacks of any sort.

except an iterative attack sequence and a mixed iterative + natural attack sequence are two differn't beasts.

you can't trade an iterative attack for natural and vice versa

technically the above could be achieved with the cheese of growing claws on your feet instead of hands

however just seems to be more logical if those claws are on arms instead of legs.

mixed iterative+natural is a very murky area.

Shadow Lodge

It's pretty clear what was intended. What you choose to do cheese wise is up to you.


0gre wrote:
It's pretty clear what was intended. What you choose to do cheese wise is up to you.

Eh just like knowing the limits ;)

Potential 100d6 sneak attack in one round is fun on paper, even though you prob never play it as with any charatcer you temper to your group to keep a level field ;)


0gre wrote:
It's pretty clear what was intended. What you choose to do cheese wise is up to you.

What was intended was an effect that was next to useless and a trap of an option (especially compared to say light, medium or heavy fortification, or immunity to stunning, cold, and paralysis) -- instead what was given was an ability with some actual use.

As such I would suggest that there isn't any cheese involved with using it as it is presented in the actual rules.


0gre wrote:
I think he pretty clearly spelled out that the intent was that the vestigial arms were not intended to be useful for making attacks of any sort.

Right, but there's a hundred other things they could be useful for. Somewhere between cheese and uselessness is a large range of subjective calls. One data point (hold a potion) makes it kind of hard to guage the intent, two points (hold a potion or a shield) works a lot better.

Shadow Lodge

Abraham spalding wrote:
0gre wrote:
It's pretty clear what was intended. What you choose to do cheese wise is up to you.

What was intended was an effect that was next to useless and a trap of an option (especially compared to say light, medium or heavy fortification, or immunity to stunning, cold, and paralysis) -- instead what was given was an ability with some actual use.

As such I would suggest that there isn't any cheese involved with using it as it is presented in the actual rules.

*shrug*

Sean made it pretty clear in the linked thread where they were coming from. I should have just pointed that out and left it at that because ultimately the word 'cheese' implies some sort of judgment which I really don't feel.

I figured on using it for a buckler so I could use feral without taking an attack penalty in my 'off' hand and to hold a potion for accelerated drinker. Is that 'worth' a discovery? *shrug* I think it's close.

If you think that's under-powered and your group is cool with some other way of reading it then by all means run with it. In most cases you know better what your group is comfortable and what works better there regardless.


Vestigal arms to hold a grapple with two other arms free to beat your grappled foe to a pulp ;)

The Exchange

Phasics wrote:
Vestigal arms to hold a grapple with two other arms free to beat your grappled foe to a pulp ;)

Cool - like that guy from Mortal Kombat? What was his name? Goro? Something like that? I think he had a sister too in one of the sequels...

Anyhoo...

Does this shed any light on the Summoner's Eidolon and the extra limbs evolution? The wording is a little different, but it would still seem strange to me if the intent was to allow multi-weapon fighting eidolons with 50 arms to get 49 off-hand attacks, whilst the Alchemist's vesitigial arm doesn't grant even one extra off-hand attack...

Grand Lodge

I know this thread is long dead, but it applies to an alchemist build I thought of recently using vestigal arms, so I thought I'd throw in my two cents.

Vestigal arms is written to make sure players know they only get one standard action per round, regardless of the number of arms they have, but that their extra arms can be used for two-weapon fighting (or multiweapon fighting) in combat.

An Alchemist with 4 arms and a Strength of 22[+6] (mutagen buffed) can wield a longsword in one and a shortsword, dogslicer, and handaxe in the others to make a standard attack action at -2/-2/-2/-2 for 1d8+6/1d6+3/1d6+3/1d6+3.

If he happened to be wielding two greatswords and had the same Strength, he could make a standard attack at -4/-4, as his off-hand greatsword is obviously not a light weapon, for 2d6+9/2d6+5. The +5 on the off-hand greatsword comes from the 1/2 Strength bonus on off-hand weapons coupled with the 1-1/2 Strength bonus from wielding a weapon with two hands, bringing it to a 3/4 Strength bonus of 4.5, which would likely be rounded up.

Both could also use a full-attack action, making all their attacks at full BAB and continuing through the BAB with their primary weapon. A fully leveled Alchemist with the greatswords would then get the normal 4 attacks (3 primary, 1 secondary) with his weapons at +17/+17/+12/+7, whereas the light-weapon alchemist would have a total of 6 attacks in his full-attack action (3 longsword, shortsword, kukri, handaxe) at +17/+17/+17/+17/+12/+7.

The two-weapon build has the greater damage capacity, with a possible total of 8d6+32 (Max 80) damage against 3d8+18 + 3d6+9 (Max 60) damage, of the two, especially when you factor in the extra attack granted by Improved Two Weapon Fighting. I'm not sure if the Multiweapon Fighter could take Improved Two Weapon Fighting due to the prereq of Two-Weapon Fighting...but it could certainly be argued.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

An Alchemist with 4 arms and a Strength of 22[+6] (mutagen buffed) can wield a longsword in one and a shortsword, dogslicer, and handaxe in the others to make a standard attack action at -2/-2/-2/-2 for 1d8+6/1d6+3/1d6+3/1d6+3.

1) A standard action doesn't let you make multiple attacks unless you have something like pounce. you could be the human centipad weilding every weapon in the game. if you move and attack you only get to attack with one of them. So what you're saying here would violate the "no extra actions" rule

2) Even if you're holding still, the feat says you get no

extra attacks or actions per round

4 axes would would 2 more attacks then you have, so its not allowed.

3) Two greatswords WOULD be allowed by raw (but not rai) I believe the wording in 3.5 was no more advantageous 2 weapon attacks than normal.


So why take the arm and not the tentacle? Gives you basically the same, you could use it to hold a buckler and a potion or? And get the grab ability.


I think that the intent with the extra arms is that you do not get extra attacks or actions.

The main benefit seems that you can have extra options available ready to use in the different hands, particularly as the description states that the arms can wield weapons.

You could for example:

Have a reach weapon in two arms and a standard weapon in another. You would then attack with reach, until the enemy closed and you would switch straight to close fighting. You effectively have a threat area of both 5 feet and 10 feet without having to drop weapons, draw weapons, take feats to shorten your grip as a swift action etc.

(With enlarge person, this is fairly awesome giving you an effective standard reach of 5ft and 10ft with one weapon and with the other 15ft and 20ft)

Another option would be to have two arms dedicated to a missile weapon, and the other two with sword and sheild allowing you to change between ranged and melee attacks at will........the ultimate switch hitter.

An interesting combination would be reach weapon, sheild and spear. Letting you switch between reach attacks, close attacks and thrown attacks (with quick draw) at will.

Without getting hung up on the quesion of whether you get extra attacks, extra arms give you a range of options which allow you to hit creatures at close, reach and missile distance and switch between the options as needed in combat.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:

The intent is that you have an extra arm for holding stuff, not to turn you into a double-greatsword-wielding maniac.

The vestigial limb is also not giving you any extra actions. For example, a normal character can use twf to attack with a manufactured weapon in one hand and one unarmed strike, whether that's a punch, kick, or headbutt. He doesn't get multiple extra unarmed strikes per round just because he has an arm, two legs, and a head free. Therefore, you don't get any extra attacks just because you now have a vestigial arm, or two vestigial arms. You're still limited by the normal limitations of the attack sequence.

...

This part wasn't really clarified.

If an alchemist with two arms and two vestigial arms wants to use 2 two-handed weapons, is this possible? If he tries, what happens? What are the penalties, does it auto-miss, is it improvised?

There's a fair amount of talk of one handed weapons and extra attacks not being allowed, but 2 two-handed weapons seems to (almost) fit the rules, except for this comment and the fact that you'd be wielding a two-handed weapon instead of a one-handed weapon as a non-light weapon, and yet the same penalty would probably be incurred.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Avatar-1 wrote:
If an alchemist with two arms and two vestigial arms wants to use 2 two-handed weapons, is this possible? If he tries, what happens? What are the penalties, does it auto-miss, is it improvised?

I'd like to add to this. Even if it is possible, can TWF feat work or is MWF feat needed since it's more than 2 arms (though only 2 weapons).

This is a very questionable build, especially for PFS since it not only can't use MWF feat (monster feat), but it also needs some reasonable evidence to it working since PFS will most-likely be more than one GM you have to have your character allowed by.


This should allow the alchemist to wield two greatswords as op asked.
We all know an eidolon can do that, and so can a synthesist. It's two weapons, that get maximum penalty out of TWF.

But, if you think back to 3.5, the Dragon Magazine's, you might remember a race called Dipsid, in issue #267, january 2000. They are an insect/human race with four arms as their key feature, and mention this to make it clear.

"A diopsid can wield a pair of two-handed weapons by using all four of its limbs. The diopsid gains the full benefits of wielding a two-handed weapon, such as 1-1/2 times its Strength bonus on damage rolls. The diopsid suffers the standard penalty for fighting with two weapons and carrying a non-light weapon in its off hand. "

Just worth noting that it's been done, that the Summoner can do this, so why not the alchemist that spends two discoveries, who are harder to come by than 2 evolution point(2 pt gives 2 additional arms and hands).

Except the synthesist could wield 4 great swords using Multi Attack.


Well, while I understand the RAI from Sean I think allowing the extra arms to actually be extra arms gives a lot of cool possibilities you normally don't get even remotely close to on your average character. Just having little t-rex things flopping around doesn't seem nearly as fun or cool.

Though, I've been messing around and human Bbn1/Alch2/Bbn5 with the Wild Rager and Vivisectionist archetypes, 20 pt. buy, dual-wielding +1 furious greatswords with the lesser fiend totem rage ability.

STR 20 (w/ level bonus)
DEX 14
CON 14
INT 12
WIS 12
CHA 7

Power Attack, Multiweapon Fighting, Iron Will, Extra Discovery, Hammer the Gap for feats.

So if I'm doing my math correctly (I may not), and with two vestigial arms allowing dual-wielding 2handers he gets with Wild Fighting, Enlarge Person, Reckless Abandon, Strength Mutagen, Power Attack and Rage...

First attack: +13MH/+13OH/+9 Gore
Second attack: +8MH/+8OH/+9 Gore
Wild Fighting: +13MH

So that'd be 3d6+24/3d6+19/2d6+7, 3d6+24/3d6+19/2d6+7, 3d6+24 then with Hammer the Gap, assuming each attack hits, that's another 21 damage.

So on average you'd be doing 211 damage on a full attack, all attacks hitting (which is unlikely, but still...) So unless my math is wrong, which it very well could be, that's just an insane amount of damage. Of course, then you're confused for a round and might hit an ally, but that's a simple matter of sending this guy in first and avoiding the hell out of him when he's raging.

So if that's all right, it could be why they don't want you wielding multiple greatswords =P

Dark Archive

I'm sorry, but since when do you measure what's overpowered by the amount of damage done if every attack hits?


Maths

Attack

Spoiler:
Barb6/Alch2 BAB +7
Str 20 +5
+1 Furious +1(+3 while raging)

Rage +4 Str +2
-2 AC
Enlarge +2 Str +0
-1 size(Att)
-2 Dex
-1 Size(AC)
Mutagen +4 Str +2
Wild Fighting -2(+extra attack)
-4 AC
Reckless Abandon +2
-2 AC
Power Attack -2
+2/4/6(damage)
TWF(OH not light)-4

That nets -2(and an extra attack)
(for -10 AC)

Total of 13/13/13/8 +9(gore) (you only get 1 OH attack without ITWF/GTWF, and the gore happens only once)

Damage

Spoiler:
Str 20(base) 4(rage) 4(mutagen) 2(size) = 30(+10)
MH 3d6(enlarged) +3(enh/furious) +15(1.5x Str) +6(2h PA) +1d6 SA (+24 +SA)
OH 3d6 +3 +5(I see no rule allowing the OH 2h attack to gain more than 1/2 str) +2(OH PA) +1d6 SA (+10)
Gore 2d6 +5(1/2 Str) +2(OH PA) +1d6 SA (+7)
HtG damage is highly situational, but the sum of 0-4 is 10)

MH 13/13/8 3d6 +24 (+1d6)
OH 13 3d6 +10 (+1d6)
Gore 9 2d6 +7 (+1d6)

Clearly they never planned for a 2h attack to be taken OH since the rules don't describe how to handle it.
At best, you could consider it a 1h attack for the purpose of Str/PA (for +17) and that's RAI. (keep in mind, even double slice doesn't let you alter the handedness)
It should probably be given it's own category of '1/2 2handed' (.75) setting the Str at +7 and PA at +3(1/2 the MH) (totals +13)
OR, the TWF penalty would be larger for a '2h OH', -6 or -8.

You'd most likely be better off with a light OH

With that -10 to AC, I'm not even sure it's worth buying armor, and I have no expectation that this build would survive more than a few encounters.
And let's do HP for fun. Min 35 Max 104 Avg 69 (+16 while raging)

You still have half your WBL to spend (33k base for level 8 - 16k for 2 +2 weapons)

Average AC of a CR 8 is listed as 21, you certainly won't hit all your attacks very often. (but they'll almost never miss you)


Excuse my Threadmancy, And for the long post.

DarkenedRurouni wrote:

I know this thread is long dead, but it applies to an alchemist build I thought of recently using vestigal arms, so I thought I'd throw in my two cents.

Vestigal arms is written to make sure players know they only get one standard action per round, regardless of the number of arms they have, but that their extra arms can be used for two-weapon fighting (or multiweapon fighting) in combat.

An Alchemist with 4 arms and a Strength of 22[+6] (mutagen buffed) can wield a longsword in one and a shortsword, dogslicer, and handaxe in the others to make a standard attack action at -2/-2/-2/-2 for 1d8+6/1d6+3/1d6+3/1d6+3.

If he happened to be wielding two greatswords and had the same Strength, he could make a standard attack at -4/-4, as his off-hand greatsword is obviously not a light weapon, for 2d6+9/2d6+5. The +5 on the off-hand greatsword comes from the 1/2 Strength bonus on off-hand weapons coupled with the 1-1/2 Strength bonus from wielding a weapon with two hands, bringing it to a 3/4 Strength bonus of 4.5, which would likely be rounded up.

Both could also use a full-attack action, making all their attacks at full BAB and continuing through the BAB with their primary weapon. A fully leveled Alchemist with the greatswords would then get the normal 4 attacks (3 primary, 1 secondary) with his weapons at +17/+17/+12/+7, whereas the light-weapon alchemist would have a total of 6 attacks in his full-attack action (3 longsword, shortsword, kukri, handaxe) at +17/+17/+17/+17/+12/+7.

The two-weapon build has the greater damage capacity, with a possible total of 8d6+32 (Max 80) damage against 3d8+18 + 3d6+9 (Max 60) damage, of the two, especially when you factor in the extra attack granted by Improved Two Weapon Fighting. I'm not sure if the Multiweapon Fighter could take Improved Two Weapon Fighting due to the prereq of Two-Weapon Fighting...but it could certainly be argued.

I agree with this set up here. With the exception of one thing. Stated in the Multiweapon Fighting feat it says:

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

So I think there is no argument needed, it is two-weapon fighting if you have more then one off hand to attack with.

In addition to this Improved two-weapon fighting only stats that your off hand attack gains another attack at a -5. There for taking it would give all your off hand attacks an extra attack each with there own -5. The same would be said about greater two-weapon fighting.

Most of you are mixing natural attacks in as well. These attacks as all natural attacks are stated to be added on at the end of a full attack. They are handed differently.

Jadeite wrote:
Aardvark Barbarian wrote:

No. A limb with a weapon does not grant you an extra attack. A character with a greatsword and armor spikes would have two attacks. A character with two kukris would have two attacks. And a character with two kukris, armor spikes, a barbazu beard and two blade boots would have two attacks as well, although he'd be free to chose which weapon to use for his off-hand attack.

Blade Boot wrote:


You can use a blade boot as an off-hand weapon.
Barbazu Beard wrote:

A barbazu beard can be used as an off-hand weapon that requires no hands to use; thus, a warrior could combine use of a barbazu beared with a two-handed weapon.

Attacking with a barbazu beard provokes an attack of opportunity. Because it is so close to the wearer's face, using a barbazu beard against creatures harmful to touch (such as fire elementals and acidic oozes) has the same risks as using a natural weapon or unarmed strike against these creatures.

Spiked Armor wrote: wrote:

You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case.

Even without extra arms, a character could wield six melee weapons. Without arms, he could wield four melee weapons. In both cases he would be able to attack with two weapons.

Well this is all not true now. The bold part is the first part is mine. I wanted to point this out because as it does say you can use Armor spikes as an off hand weapon it also states in that they can only be used if you have not made an other off hand attack so there goes your armor spikes. Blade boot allows you to attack with it as an off hand weapon because you are giving a limb a weapon. How is this not proving the point. the same can be said with the Beard. The point is, if you have have extra arms weather a racial trait gave them to you or a class feature you can wield weapons in them this allows you to use those weapons at penalties yes, but that is why the Multiweapon Fighting Feat exists for creatures and PCs who qualify for them. In this case I have four arms and I wield 2 great swords. I require Multiweapon fighting not because I am using 3 or more weapons but because my 3 or more hands are wielding weapons. It doesn't matter that that happens to net out to 2 great swords.

The Summoners pet can do it. And if the summons pet can use the summoners feats the summoner should be able to use the pet to qualify for feats. SO allowing Multiweapon fighting to be taken. As well as an alchemist would qualify with his Discovery because he has 3 or more hands capable of holding weapons. The point of putting that an alchemist does not gain extra attacks directly from the arm was to point out that if I took both arms by 3nd level(which you can) I would not run into combat with three attacks my two new arms and my normal attack. However if I were to take the Multiweapon fighting feat at 3rd level and my 4th arm at 4th level. I could make 4 attacks. So long as I wielded weapons. That would be my Normal attack plus my three off hand attacks not granted by Multiweapon fighting but granted because i am using them in fighting. I could use them without multiweapon fighting while wielding weapons and still get 4 attack. Even using the first example. But my main attack would be at -6 and my three off hand attacks would be at -10 because I don't have the feat that reduces the penalties.

If you don't see the difference I can't say I blame you the lines are all grey for the most part. But I am saying if I invested 2 discoveries (or 1 and 1 feat) and a extra feat to be able to wield 4 weapons or 2 tow-handed weapons. Or any combo legal therefor. Why are you freaking out? I mean is not Like I don't have a poor BAB and a d6 HP. All I can say is I would allow it in my game. Just like if someone was playing a Xill they would also be able to do the same.
As far as the wings granting you natural attacks I see no where in the discovery that says they do. And most things with wings don't get to use them for attacks until they or large or some larger so why would you?

The Exchange

What about wielding two shields + one two handed weapon? Tower shields perhaps...does the AC bonus applies from both of these shields? I want to make an Alchemist fighter.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

there seems to be a lot of weapon + natural attack examples. What about a tiefling taking claws as a racial trait on his alchemists normal hands, then getting two hands later followed by a ranger's Aspect of the Beast to turn is two extra hands into two extra claws. Since their all Primary Natural attacks wouldn't you get four attacks if all were used as full attack round with natural weapons?

Second scenario, 4 arms, 2 greatswords, two-weapon fighting. There are no 'extra' attacks here, just both coming from a 2d6 weapon...

Any ruling on these specific situations (Paizo specific ruling not "well my opinion is..." ruling)?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
0gre wrote:
I think he pretty clearly spelled out that the intent was that the vestigial arms were not intended to be useful for making attacks of any sort.

Neither is an eidolons 'extra' arms.....oh, until you point-buy/add claws to those arms...So what if your born with hands already have claws due to racial trait (Tiefling/Tengu) and you add claws to the second pair of arms (if you get two) from a Ranger's Aspect of the Beast?

Now you have four PRIMARY natural attacks. My understanding of a full attack round with all/only natural weapons allows you an attack with all you possess.


This discovery is poorly designed, to be perfectly honest (In my nonprofessional opinion). One line at the end of the description tagging on "This arm is frail, shaky, and unable to make combat worthy attacks, wield weapons effectively, and cannot be used as part of a natural weapon sequence in any way." would've avoided a lot of debate.

Paizo Employee Official Rules Response

15 people marked this as a favorite.

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

Alchemist, Tentacle/Vestigial Arm: What does "extra attacks" mean for these discoveries?

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.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

So, say you have a Tengu Monk with Two-Weapon Fighting and Improved Unarmed Strike.

Could said character perform a Bite/Claw/Claw/Dagger/Dagger?

Could said character perform a Bite/Claw/Claw/Strike/Strike?

If "no" to the first, but "yes" to the second, can you help us understand why?


Nefreet wrote:

So, say you have a Tengu Monk with Two-Weapon Fighting and Improved Unarmed Strike.

Could said character perform a Bite/Claw/Claw/Dagger/Dagger?

Seriously?

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Yes, seriously, because that example has been the crux of several of the discussions.

Paizo Employee Official Rules Response

3 people marked this as a favorite.

A monk is not an alchemist.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Monk/Alchemist, then. You know what I mean. Or even just an Alchemist with IUS and TWF.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Likewise, what happens if said four-armed Alchemist uses a Feral Mutagen? Would the Mutagen succeed in granting him "extra" attacks, or does the Vestigial Arm limitation still apply?

These are the examples that have been debated. I am surprised the FAQ response does not include them.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:

Likewise, what happens if said four-armed Alchemist uses a Feral Mutagen? Would the Mutagen succeed in granting him "extra" attacks, or does the Vestigial Arm limitation still apply?

These are the examples that have been debated. I am surprised the FAQ response does not include them.

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

Stand two alchemists (or monk/alchemists, or whatever) side by side, who have completely identical builds except that one of them lacks Vestigial Arm.

They will always have the same number of attacks, because if they didn't, then VA would be granting extra attacks.

Paizo Employee Official Rules Response

Nefreet wrote:
Monk/Alchemist, then. You know what I mean. Or even just an Alchemist with IUS and TWF.

How can we know what you mean if you don't say what you mean?

How can you expect to get an answer to your question if your question appears vague and off-topic?

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Do you wish me to start another thread asking the same question, or should we discuss it here?

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Jiggy wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

Likewise, what happens if said four-armed Alchemist uses a Feral Mutagen? Would the Mutagen succeed in granting him "extra" attacks, or does the Vestigial Arm limitation still apply?

These are the examples that have been debated. I am surprised the FAQ response does not include them.

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

Stand two alchemists (or monk/alchemists, or whatever) side by side, who have completely identical builds except that one of them lacks Vestigial Arm.

They will always have the same number of attacks, because if they didn't, then VA would be granting extra attacks.

That's been the case all along. People have different understandings of the word "extra".

A two-armed Tengu Alchemist (for example), with Improved Unarmed Strike, and Two Weapon Fighting, can perform 5 attacks: Bite/Claw/Claw/Strike/Strike.

Add two more arms, and he should be able to do Bite/Claw/Claw/Dagger/Dagger.

5 = 5. Nothing "extra" involved.

This has been discussed multiple times across several threads. I find it odd that the PDT chooses to leave this example out.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Nefreet wrote:
Do you wish me to start another thread asking the same question, or should we discuss it here?

I'm not sure what you are asking, but let me phrase it another way.

A Kasatha with 4 arms can take two more attacks in a given round with identical feats/class levels than an Alchemist with 2 more Vestigial arms.

Both have 4 arms, but only one (Kasatha) can make 4 attacks from an arm.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
What's the purpose of using the FAQ?

The FAQ system was built to allow players and GMs to draw attention to unclear, confusing, or incorrect parts of the game rules and get official answers from the designers.

It is not intended to create official rulings for every possible corner case or combination of the rules. Paizo firmly believes it is the privilege and responsibility of the GM to make rulings for unusual circumstances or unusual characters.

If you find the definition of "extra" unclear, confusing, or incorrect, make a ruling and move on.


Nefreet wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

Likewise, what happens if said four-armed Alchemist uses a Feral Mutagen? Would the Mutagen succeed in granting him "extra" attacks, or does the Vestigial Arm limitation still apply?

These are the examples that have been debated. I am surprised the FAQ response does not include them.

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

Stand two alchemists (or monk/alchemists, or whatever) side by side, who have completely identical builds except that one of them lacks Vestigial Arm.

They will always have the same number of attacks, because if they didn't, then VA would be granting extra attacks.

That's been the case all along. People have different understandings of the word "extra".

A two-armed Tengu Alchemist (for example), with Improved Unarmed Strike, and Two Weapon Fighting, can perform 5 attacks: Bite/Claw/Claw/Strike/Strike.

Add two more arms, and he should be able to do Bite/Claw/Claw/Dagger/Dagger.

5 = 5. Nothing "extra" involved.

This has been discussed multiple times across several threads. I find it odd that the PDT chooses to leave this example out.

A number of people actually don't agree with this statement. It's along the same lines as swinging with a Greatsword and still trying to double kick out.

A biped has 2 limbs for attacking (main and off hand in general). You can use each limb once in a round as a base. So, if you use the main "hand" for a claw attack you can't use the same main "hand" for an unarmed strike.

Said Tengu should only have 3 attacks in a round.


This is quickly getting to the territory of this thread that I believe was erroneously marked as in the FAQ
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pzg4?The-Interaction-Between-Unarmed-Strikes-a nd#1

In addition, there's a link within there to a thread where we discussed (civilly) with Sean these same sort of topics.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Sniggevert, Unarmed Strikes may be made with any part of the body. Elbows, Knees, Headbutts, Kicks, and Shoulder Slams are all possible.

A Tengu Monk can indeed perform 5 attacks. There is no dispute against this, which is why I use it as a baseline.


There actually is dispute on that...

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Cheapy, I have no desire for this discussion to become "uncivil", but these questions will keep coming up unless an FAQ addresses them all. Given the limited scope of this answer, I see no fewer questions around the corner.

I have no interest in making one of these four-armed monsters, nor do I try to achieve the maximum number of attacks in a given round with any of my characters. I do not ask these questions for my benefit.

But some do.

And we will keep seeing them pop up in this Forum until an answer addresses them.

I disagree that these are "corner cases", as well.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

Nefreet, I'm not sure how you're deriving what you're doing. Walk me through this, because you're not providing critical information about this character. You say:

{A two-armed Tengu Alchemist (for example), with Improved Unarmed Strike, and Two Weapon Fighting, can perform 5 attacks: Bite/Claw/Claw/Strike/Strike.}

I assume this character has the "claw attacks" racial trait that replaces swordtrained?

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Indeed.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

Ok, so (putting them in the proper order of "manufactured followed by natural") it's doing punch/punch/bite/claw/claw?

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Ok, so (putting them in the proper order of "manufactured followed by natural") it's doing punch/punch/bite/claw/claw?

Isn't that the same as "Dagger/Dagger/Bite/Claw/Claw"?

And isn't that using the same limb twice (Dagger and Claw)? Which isn't allowed.

I always thought of IUS as "I can hold a potion in my hands and kick you twice instead of punch you" as opposed to "I can not kick you and punch you" for more attacks?


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Ok, so (putting them in the proper order of "manufactured followed by natural") it's doing punch/punch/bite/claw/claw?

or kick kick claw claw bite (since unarmed attacks use the rules for manufactured weapons)

or vague semi described unarmed strike/vauge semi described unarmed strike/claw/claw/bite.

or bootblade/bootblade/claw/claw/bite.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

I want to know what Nefreet is doing.

51 to 100 of 388 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Alchemist "Vestigial Arm" discovery question All Messageboards