Alchemist "Vestigial Arm" discovery question


Rules Questions

151 to 200 of 388 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

mplindustries wrote:
Does anyone else see how silly this just got?

I agree, this has gotten rather absurd and should be left up to the GM.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

I got the "no x4 claws", part.

How one Longspear, is more than two Daggers, makes no sense to me, in any rules context.

I really need to have a better explanation, as I have no real way to make this so, in my mind.

I don't think the spear, 2xclaws should be an issue.


fretgod99 wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

Regarding manufactured weapons, the rules assume you have two "hands" worth of actions. You can wield two one-handed weapons, or one two-handed weapon.

You cannot wield two two-handed weapons, regardless of how many actual hands you have.

Yeah, can't remember the exact quote from SKR. But it amounted to, "The intent was not to create twf greatsword wielding maniacs".

Found it.

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.


Tell me if I've got this right...

In most cases, I don't think this opens up crazy weapon combinations to get access to the natural attacks located on your vestigial arm(s), only because unarmed strike exists. You can make iterative attacks with an unarmed strike due to high BAB, can TWF with unarmed strikes, and are capable of doing either so as long as your legs are free (assuming you have a pair—sorry mermaids). If this is the case, then Barbazu Beards and Armor Spikes would rarely be useful for this purpose. They're options for off-hand attacks, but so long as you have a two free legs, I don't see what they would do for you.

So, example: If you have 4 claws (2 from a racial trait, 2 grown on your vestigial arms from feral mutagen) and a 1 bite (from feral mutagen), at +1-5 BAB, you could make all 5 of those claw attacks, replacing a potential kick(primary)/kick(off-hand)/bite/claw/claw with bite/claw/claw/claw/claw. Even without the improved unarmed strike or two-weapon fighting feats, two-weapon fighting with unarmed strikes is still an option, right?

Interpreted this way, it's two steps:
1. Figure out the most optimal attack routine you're capable of making without a second pair of arms.
2. Replace any of those attacks with those you're capable of making with your second pair of arms.

Though maybe I got this wrong? Is it allowed to replace an off-hand attack or iterative attack with a natural attack instead? Do you apply the same penalties, or just replace the attack outright?

I get the feeling if Pathfinder were revised today, all characters would receive a maximum number of attacks per round based on BAB (similar to eidolons), thus avoiding these Byzantine methods. EDIT: Also, sorry for bringing Feral Mutagen into this. Getting my threads mixed up.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Outside of the Claw attacks, SKR has explained how it functions, as I had always assumed it did.

Still, there are some who see any use of the arms, that doesn't cripple you, and give less actions, with a response of "go screw yourself".

If that's your view, houserule it, and never see it's use again.


Nefreet wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Because a two-armed character would not be capable of making 4 claw attacks.

Where is that restriction coming from? The rule was that the character could not make more attacks through Vestigial Arms than he could without. It did not say anything about what kind of attacks those were.

A two armed character couldn't make two dagger attacks and two claw attacks either, but SKR specifically called that out as doable.

Read everything he said, though. The only reason the four-armed character is getting 5 attacks is because it was capable of getting that same number of attacks when it had two arms.

That's exactly my point. The character in my example was also capable of making 5 attacks (either kick/kick/claw/claw/bite or in the second example, beard/spikes/claw/claw/bite) before the extra arms.

Claw x4/Bite is 5 attacks. Why is that not allowed but Dagger/Dagger/Claw/Claw/Bite is?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
mplindustries wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Because a two-armed character would not be capable of making 4 claw attacks.

Where is that restriction coming from? The rule was that the character could not make more attacks through Vestigial Arms than he could without. It did not say anything about what kind of attacks those were.

A two armed character couldn't make two dagger attacks and two claw attacks either, but SKR specifically called that out as doable.

Read everything he said, though. The only reason the four-armed character is getting 5 attacks is because it was capable of getting that same number of attacks when it had two arms.

That's exactly my point. The character in my example was also capable of making 5 attacks (either kick/kick/claw/claw/bite or in the second example, beard/spikes/claw/claw/bite) before the extra arms.

Claw x4/Bite is 5 attacks. Why is that not allowed but Dagger/Dagger/Claw/Claw/Bite is?

I am not too sure either.

Also, I don't think the beard/bite thing works. Same "limb" thing.

Sub boot blade, and you're good though.


Without vestigial arms, you would only have 2 claws. That doesn't change when you add vestigial arms, you don't get to choose to have 4 claws any more than you can have 2 bite attacks with a toothy barbarian halforc.
Vestigial arms can be used to hold weapons and attack with them instead of using other attacks, but they can't be used to make claw attacks, even if you later take feral mutagen, because you have to figure how your number of attacks *without* the vestigial arms (effectively, they are added last).
So feral mutagen is a wasted discovery on a tengu with the right racial features, since he already has 2 claws and 1 bite. 4x claw attacks are a no go. And you can do a couple unarmed strikes with -4 and -8 penalties.
Now, if you have vestigial arms, you can wield a couple of daggers in them, and do dagger(-4)/dagger(-8)/claw(-5)/claw(-5)/bite(-5), but you don't have 4 claw attacks.


Rhatahema wrote:
Though maybe I got this wrong? Is it allowed to replace an off-hand attack or iterative attack with a natural attack instead? Do you apply the same penalties, or just replace the attack outright?

As it currently stands there are no penalties for the claw claw claw claw bite attack routine. Since you're not actually using dual wielding and not actually using your natural weapons as offhand weapons you don't take the -2 or the -5 for doing so.

Liberty's Edge

Krinn wrote:

Without vestigial arms, you would only have 2 claws. That doesn't change when you add vestigial arms, you don't get to choose to have 4 claws any more than you can have 2 bite attacks with a toothy barbarian halforc.

Vestigial arms can be used to hold weapons and attack with them instead of using other attacks, but they can't be used to make claw attacks, even if you later take feral mutagen, because you have to figure how your number of attacks *without* the vestigial arms (effectively, they are added last).
So feral mutagen is a wasted discovery on a tengu with the right racial features, since he already has 2 claws and 1 bite. 4x claw attacks are a no go. And you can do a couple unarmed strikes with -4 and -8 penalties.
Now, if you have vestigial arms, you can wield a couple of daggers in them, and do dagger(-4)/dagger(-8)/claw(-5)/claw(-5)/bite(-5), but you don't have 4 claw attacks.

This pretty much sums up how I understand it.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

I got the "no x4 claws", part.

How one Longspear, is more than two Daggers, makes no sense to me, in any rules context.

I really need to have a better explanation, as I have no real way to make this so, in my mind.

Because using a two-handed weapon "consumes" both a main-hand and an off-hand attack. So you may only roll the dice once, but using the longspear uses, in this case, two of the alchemists' attacks.

Note that it's not consuming two iterative attacks, and if you weren't entitled to an off-hand attack you could still use the spear. For example, an alchemist with BAB 6 but not Improved TWF could attack with +6dagger/+6dagger/+1spear, or +6spear/+1dagger.


mplindustries wrote:
Claw x4/Bite is 5 attacks. Why is that not allowed but Dagger/Dagger/Claw/Claw/Bite is?

+0/+0/+0/+0/+0 (all full STR) is loads better than -2/-2/-5/-5/-5 (with only one at full STR). That's why you shouldn't be able to do 4xClaw/Bite.

You can't do it because without the Vestigial Arms, you can't make 5 natural attacks. Since Vestigial Arms doesn't let you make a number of attacks after taking it that you couldn't take before taking it, you can't use it to increase the number of natural attacks you make in a round. So, even though you can typically make "all of your natural attacks", "all of them (2)" is different (less than) "all of them (4)". You're limited to the number you had prior to Vestigial Arms.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Sub boot blade, and you're good though.

Given the current trend of errata, I'm pretty sure that boot blade will inevitably be fixed so that it occupies your "off-hand" (man they need to clean up their terminology in the next iteration of the rules). They seem be to steering away from creative ways of holding weapons to gain extra attacks.


I think I had a brainfart reading SKR's post last night (thank you helpful shamrock). I'll take another whack at it when more caffinated.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Bizbag wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

I got the "no x4 claws", part.

How one Longspear, is more than two Daggers, makes no sense to me, in any rules context.

I really need to have a better explanation, as I have no real way to make this so, in my mind.

Because using a two-handed weapon "consumes" both a main-hand and an off-hand attack. So you may only roll the dice once, but using the longspear uses, in this case, two of the alchemists' attacks.

Note that it's not consuming two iterative attacks, and if you weren't entitled to an off-hand attack you could still use the spear. For example, an alchemist with BAB 6 but not Improved TWF could attack with +6dagger/+6dagger/+1spear, or +6spear/+1dagger.

Claws have nothing to do with the "off-hand", or iterative attacks.

In fact, your "off-hand" comment only supports combining a Longspear attack with claws, as we already know you can make an attack with a dagger, and an off-hand attack with another dagger, in addition to claw attacks.


This would be so much easier if PDT would just issue an errata on how natural attacks and manufactured weapons interacted so that these silly frackin builds weren't an issue. The whole thing just needs to be sat down and reconsidered in my opinion so that this crap can be simplified and this BS can all go away.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Claxon wrote:
This would be so much easier if PDT would just issue an errata on how natural attacks and manufactured weapons interacted so that these silly frackin builds weren't an issue. The whole thing just needs to be sat down and reconsidered in my opinion so that this crap can be simplified and this BS can all go away.

Actually, the rules regarding mixing the two are quite clear.

What exactly are you confused about?


Quote:

Claws have nothing to do with the "off-hand", or iterative attacks.

In fact, your "off-hand" comment only supports combining a Longspear attack with claws, as we already know you can make an attack with a dagger, and an off-hand attack with another dagger, in addition to claw attacks.

I didn't say anything about claw attacks. Why are you arguing my point as if I did? For the purpose of the "number of attacks" you get in a round, using a two-handed weapon consumes that iteration's MH and OH action economy, as per the armor spikes FAQ. Hence, having three rolls of the dice for spear/claw/claw is "equal" to having four rolls of the dice for dagger/dagger/claw/claw. This is the same as if you didn't have claws at all; you would have spear, or dagger/dagger, since the spikes FAQ disallowed spear/spikes.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Actually, the rules regarding mixing the two are quite clear.

What exactly are you confused about?

I think it is less confusing as it is undesired.

I personally don't like the thought that claw/claw/bite/unarmed/unarmed is allowed on a Tengu Monk/Alchemist.


James Risner wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Actually, the rules regarding mixing the two are quite clear.

What exactly are you confused about?

I think it is less confusing as it is undesired.

I personally don't like the thought that claw/claw/bite/unarmed/unarmed is allowed on a Tengu Monk/Alchemist.

I actually am not a fan of the UAS/UAS/Claw/Claw/Bite thing, either. But that appears to be allowable by RAW.

Maybe my Natural Weapon Tiefling Ranger should take a one level dip into Monk?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
James Risner wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Actually, the rules regarding mixing the two are quite clear.

What exactly are you confused about?

I think it is less confusing as it is undesired.

I personally don't like the thought that claw/claw/bite/unarmed/unarmed is allowed on a Tengu Monk/Alchemist.

The massive penalties and the fact that you are getting a total of x2 strength to damage, which is the same as two claw attacks, balances it.


James Risner wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Actually, the rules regarding mixing the two are quite clear.

What exactly are you confused about?

I think it is less confusing as it is undesired.

I personally don't like the thought that claw/claw/bite/unarmed/unarmed is allowed on a Tengu Monk/Alchemist.

BINGO!

I am not confused by the rules. I just don't think they funciton as desired on intended by Paizo. I think they heldover the system from 3.5, and that it turns out it doesn't work so well or fit in line with what they actually desire. Thats why I said I'd like to see an ERRATA (a change in the rules) not a FAQ (which should only be a clarification of the rules).

I don't like any of this business of tengu getting claw/claw/unarmed strike/unarmed strike. It's silly to me and I already house rule against it. Based on the rulings the PDT have made and the opinions expressed by SKR and others I believe they agree with me.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
James Risner wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Actually, the rules regarding mixing the two are quite clear.

What exactly are you confused about?

I think it is less confusing as it is undesired.

I personally don't like the thought that claw/claw/bite/unarmed/unarmed is allowed on a Tengu Monk/Alchemist.

The massive penalties and the fact that you are getting a total of x2 strength to damage, which is the same as two claw attacks, balances it.

I agree with you that the penalties balance it out, but for accuracy's sake, I see x3.5 total STR here: 1xUS/1xUS/0.5C/0.5C/0.5C

Or perhaps 3.0 if the second US doesn't get the benefit of the full STR bonus.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Off-hand attacks only receive half strength to damage.

Also, the natural attack rules in general, are different from 3.5.


... Did you just see the number "3.5" and assume I was talking about editions? I wasn't.

Anyway, It'd still total x3.0 damage instead of the x2.0 you indicated before. Again, the character has hefty penalties to their attacks to balance, but there it is.


Bizbag wrote:

... Did you just see the number "3.5" and assume I was talking about editions? I wasn't.

Anyway, It'd still total x3.0 damage instead of the x2.0 you indicated before. Again, the character has hefty penalties to their attacks to balance, but there it is.

No, I think that 3.5 mention was in response to Claxon.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
fretgod99 wrote:
Bizbag wrote:

... Did you just see the number "3.5" and assume I was talking about editions? I wasn't.

Anyway, It'd still total x3.0 damage instead of the x2.0 you indicated before. Again, the character has hefty penalties to their attacks to balance, but there it is.

No, I think that 3.5 mention was in response to Claxon.

Yes.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Off-hand attacks only receive half strength to damage.

Also, the natural attack rules in general, are different from 3.5.

It's been so long since I played I guess I don't remember accurately.


Krinn wrote:

Without vestigial arms, you would only have 2 claws. That doesn't change when you add vestigial arms, you don't get to choose to have 4 claws any more than you can have 2 bite attacks with a toothy barbarian halforc.

Vestigial arms can be used to hold weapons and attack with them instead of using other attacks, but they can't be used to make claw attacks, even if you later take feral mutagen, because you have to figure how your number of attacks *without* the vestigial arms (effectively, they are added last).
So feral mutagen is a wasted discovery on a tengu with the right racial features, since he already has 2 claws and 1 bite. 4x claw attacks are a no go. And you can do a couple unarmed strikes with -4 and -8 penalties.
Now, if you have vestigial arms, you can wield a couple of daggers in them, and do dagger(-4)/dagger(-8)/claw(-5)/claw(-5)/bite(-5), but you don't have 4 claw attacks.

Hm, well the idea is that a toothy barbarian half-orc only has one mouth, thus allowing for only one bite attack. If he had two mouths, he could possibly gain a second bite. But feral mutagen and duplicate natural attacks are a distinct rules discussion, so I'll drop it.

Was there ever an explicit ruling on using the vestigial arm(s) to wield two-handed weapons? I know SKR mentioned that wasn't the intent.


So here is something about SKR post that is bothering me.

A tengu with IUS and 2 vestitial arms can make a Dagger/Dagger/Claw/Claw/Bite attack routine.

Can any race with feral mutagen and IUS can get this routine as well?

Is IUS strictly required since you are not making any unarmed strikes?

The part that is bugging me is that it seems that we are saying that you have to take the IUS feat just so you can get 2 more dagger attacks, which seems like a really odd and counter intuative feat tax.


Charender wrote:

So here is something about SKR post that is bothering me...

Is IUS strictly required since you are not making any unarmed strikes?

The part that is bugging me is that it seems that we are saying that you have to take the IUS feat just so you can get 2 more dagger attacks, which seems like a really odd and counter intuative feat tax.

I believe SKR's point was that the monk's rules for limiting what parts of their body they can attack with apply to all characters making unarmed strikes, not just monks. Any character can attack with an unarmed strike without the improved unarmed strike feat, and any character can use two-weapon fighting without the two-weapon fighting feat.

Shadow Lodge

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

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.

So I had two questions on this one. Specifically, related to several quotes below:

(Monk) Unarmed Strike wrote:
A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet.
(Monk) Unarmed Strike wrote:
This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full.
(Combat) Unarmed Attacks wrote:
Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, ...

Now, if we go off of what you said above, then parts of these three quotes stop making sense.

  • First, the "head butts" listed under Unarmed Attacks from the Combat section. If Monks can't use them, who can? If Monks can't use them, does this mean that anybody else with IUS can? I agree with you that such would be silly, but otherwise why is it there?

  • Second, the second quote from Monk's Unarmed Strike. It says that a Monk may may unarmed strikes with his hands full. My normal interpretation of that would be that a non-Monk could not do so, so the Human with IUS and TWF in your above example could not make any kick attacks because his hands are full. If that's not the case, then why the extraneous wording in the Monk description?


  • Charender wrote:

    So here is something about SKR post that is bothering me.

    A tengu with IUS and 2 vestitial arms can make a Dagger/Dagger/Claw/Claw/Bite attack routine.

    Can any race with feral mutagen and IUS can get this routine as well?

    Is IUS strictly required since you are not making any unarmed strikes?

    The part that is bugging me is that it seems that we are saying that you have to take the IUS feat just so you can get 2 more dagger attacks, which seems like a really odd and counter intuative feat tax.

    Any creature can make unarmed strikes, you just provoke doing it without the feat. Conceivably, any character can weapon/weapon/claw/claw/bite.


    Rhatahema wrote:
    Was there ever an explicit ruling on using the vestigial arm(s) to wield two-handed weapons? I know SKR mentioned that wasn't the intent.

    The explicit ruling would be this one that says, basically, you can't do anything after Vestigial Arms that you couldn't do before (paraphrasing, obviously). You couldn't two-hand two separate weapons before VA, so you can't afterwards. Along with the THW/TWF FAQ, the suggestion is that fighting with a THW is the equivalent of fighting with two one-handed/light weapons. Attacking with two THW would then be like attacking with four one-handed/light weapons.

    Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

    fretgod99 wrote:
    Rhatahema wrote:
    Was there ever an explicit ruling on using the vestigial arm(s) to wield two-handed weapons? I know SKR mentioned that wasn't the intent.
    The explicit ruling would be this one that says, basically, you can't do anything after Vestigial Arms that you couldn't do before (paraphrasing, obviously). You couldn't two-hand two separate weapons before VA, so you can't afterwards.

    No, this ruling is only about the number of attacks having to be the same whether you had VA or not, not that you can't do anything with it that you couldn't do without it. For example, a normal human can't use a greatsword and a heavy shield at the same time, but as long as you don't take any extra attacks you could do so with Vestigial Arm.


    Jiggy wrote:
    fretgod99 wrote:
    Rhatahema wrote:
    Was there ever an explicit ruling on using the vestigial arm(s) to wield two-handed weapons? I know SKR mentioned that wasn't the intent.
    The explicit ruling would be this one that says, basically, you can't do anything after Vestigial Arms that you couldn't do before (paraphrasing, obviously). You couldn't two-hand two separate weapons before VA, so you can't afterwards.
    No, this ruling is only about the number of attacks having to be the same whether you had VA or not, not that you can't do anything with it that you couldn't do without it. For example, a normal human can't use a greatsword and a heavy shield at the same time, but as long as you don't take any extra attacks you could do so with Vestigial Arm.

    Sure. I was being a bit loose. But the part of my post you excised dealt with why this FAQ (in conjunction with another) implies that you cannot TWF with THW.

    I didn't really want to dive into the handedness/exertion stuff, but that's basically what it boils down to. You don't get extra "hands" to make additional attacks with, which is what would be required to TWF with THW. Hands being used metaphorically here, of course.


    fretgod99 wrote:
    mplindustries wrote:
    Claw x4/Bite is 5 attacks. Why is that not allowed but Dagger/Dagger/Claw/Claw/Bite is?
    +0/+0/+0/+0/+0 (all full STR) is loads better than -2/-2/-5/-5/-5 (with only one at full STR). That's why you shouldn't be able to do 4xClaw/Bite.

    There are a lot of things that shouldn't be in Pathfinder, but are anyway, so I understand why you want me to be wrong, but I don't think I am.

    fretgod99 wrote:
    You can't do it because without the Vestigial Arms, you can't make 5 natural attacks. Since Vestigial Arms doesn't let you make a number of attacks after taking it that you couldn't take before taking it, you can't use it to increase the number of natural attacks you make in a round.

    It doesn't separate manufactured or natural attacks in any way. It simply says "attacks" and only cares about the number. This character can make 5 attacks before the arms, and is still making 5 afterwards. That should be all there is to it, and I've yet to see anything actually relating to the ability or FAQ ruling that says there is anything more.

    Vestigial Arms + Feral Mutagen + Race with Claws = 5 attacks as long as you're wielding two non-hand weapons (including IUS). And, well, obviously that is a silly restriction.

    My point here is that the Developers are using "extra attacks" as if there's some place that tells you how many attacks you can make. It's just not true. Everyone can dual wield, for example, with or without a feat. Really, unarmed strikes don't require a feat, and you can attack with a slotless weapon non-proficiently. So, really, the restriction is meaningless.

    Here's what they meant:

    "A Vestigial Arm does not qualify you for multi-weapon fighting."

    Done. Simple. There's no reason to add all this extra language explaining away that they don't want people making extra weapon attacks. That's literally all it takes. It's trickier for the tentacle, of course, but I can't really figure out what the point of the tentacle is (vs. say, the arm).


    fretgod99 wrote:
    Jiggy wrote:
    fretgod99 wrote:
    Rhatahema wrote:
    Was there ever an explicit ruling on using the vestigial arm(s) to wield two-handed weapons? I know SKR mentioned that wasn't the intent.
    The explicit ruling would be this one that says, basically, you can't do anything after Vestigial Arms that you couldn't do before (paraphrasing, obviously). You couldn't two-hand two separate weapons before VA, so you can't afterwards.
    No, this ruling is only about the number of attacks having to be the same whether you had VA or not, not that you can't do anything with it that you couldn't do without it. For example, a normal human can't use a greatsword and a heavy shield at the same time, but as long as you don't take any extra attacks you could do so with Vestigial Arm.

    Sure. I was being a bit loose. But the part of my post you excised dealt with why this FAQ (in conjunction with another) implies that you cannot TWF with THW.

    I didn't really want to dive into the handedness/exertion stuff, but that's basically what it boils down to. You don't get extra "hands" to make additional attacks with, which is what would be required to TWF with THW. Hands being used metaphorically here, of course.

    Well, that's not exactly an explicit ruling, is it? (not that I don't appreciate your response). It's more inference based on an interpretation of an FAQ ruling which gives no explanation to what it disallows (in this case, armor spikes, though that's a discussion for the armor spikes thread).

    Anyway, I wasn't asking about two-weapon fighting with a two-handed weapon necessarily. For instance, is there any reason you couldn't make two claw attacks with your normal arms, then use your vestigial arms to make iterative attacks with a two-handed sword (replacing the iterative attacks you could be making with an unarmed strike).


    fretgod99 wrote:
    Charender wrote:

    So here is something about SKR post that is bothering me.

    A tengu with IUS and 2 vestitial arms can make a Dagger/Dagger/Claw/Claw/Bite attack routine.

    Can any race with feral mutagen and IUS can get this routine as well?

    Is IUS strictly required since you are not making any unarmed strikes?

    The part that is bugging me is that it seems that we are saying that you have to take the IUS feat just so you can get 2 more dagger attacks, which seems like a really odd and counter intuative feat tax.

    Any creature can make unarmed strikes, you just provoke doing it without the feat. Conceivably, any character can weapon/weapon/claw/claw/bite.

    Good point. So basically, anyone can use their normal weapon attacks(TWF or Two-handed), and claw/claw/bite in the same full attack.

    The FAQ does not say anywhere that you must keep the same type of attack(manufactured vs natural), so based on the ruling is there any precedence for disallowing Claw/Claw/Claw/Claw/Bite?


    You realize the whole point of these threads that lead to this FAQ was people asking whether you could use Feral Mutagen in conjunction with Vestigial Arms to make four claw attacks? That is literally the only thing that people were still arguing about.

    Beyond that, if you can make all of your natural attacks, why could you then not combine them with two more UAS, just like normal? Then you could have 7 attacks. But which two are you not allowed to make? The two that are above and beyond what you could do prior to taking Vestigial Arms. That would be the two extra claw attacks.

    PDT wrote:

    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).

    ***

    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.

    The restrictions are the same for both discoveries. Despite what natural weapons ordinarily allow a character to do, these natural weapons do not necessarily follow the same rules that say ordinarily you can attack all of the natural weapons you have available.


    Rhatahema wrote:
    Anyway, I wasn't asking about two-weapon fighting with a two-handed weapon necessarily. For instance, is there any reason you couldn't make two claw attacks with your normal arms, then use your vestigial arms to make iterative attacks with a two-handed sword (replacing the iterative attacks you could be making with an unarmed strike).

    That's perfectly fine (assuming just one THW, of course ;) ). Basically, you've got four limbs available to make two claw attacks and two manufactured weapon attacks/UAS, if you want to go that far.

    Since it's ordinarily something that can be done by any character (which claws), whether the character has vestigial arms or not, it's something that a character with vestigial arms can do.


    Charender wrote:
    fretgod99 wrote:
    Charender wrote:

    So here is something about SKR post that is bothering me.

    A tengu with IUS and 2 vestitial arms can make a Dagger/Dagger/Claw/Claw/Bite attack routine.

    Can any race with feral mutagen and IUS can get this routine as well?

    Is IUS strictly required since you are not making any unarmed strikes?

    The part that is bugging me is that it seems that we are saying that you have to take the IUS feat just so you can get 2 more dagger attacks, which seems like a really odd and counter intuative feat tax.

    Any creature can make unarmed strikes, you just provoke doing it without the feat. Conceivably, any character can weapon/weapon/claw/claw/bite.

    Good point. So basically, anyone can use their normal weapon attacks(TWF or Two-handed), and claw/claw/bite in the same full attack.

    The FAQ does not say anywhere that you must keep the same type of attack(manufactured vs natural), so based on the ruling is there any precedence for disallowing Claw/Claw/Claw/Claw/Bite?

    Honestly, that's basically the question that led to this whole recent fervor: whether you can get 4xClaw with VA and Feral Mutagen.

    The strongest reasoning against it is that you cannot make four natural claw attacks prior to getting VA, so you cannot after, either. That would be adding two extra natural attacks. You can do weapon/weapon/claw/claw because anybody can do that. Some people disagree with that, though. They argue that it's simply a numbers game. Since the language in the FAQ specifically calls out that VA and Tentacle aren't really supposed to be like standard natural attacks, I find that argument unpersuasive.


    fretgod99 wrote:
    Charender wrote:
    fretgod99 wrote:
    Charender wrote:

    So here is something about SKR post that is bothering me.

    A tengu with IUS and 2 vestitial arms can make a Dagger/Dagger/Claw/Claw/Bite attack routine.

    Can any race with feral mutagen and IUS can get this routine as well?

    Is IUS strictly required since you are not making any unarmed strikes?

    The part that is bugging me is that it seems that we are saying that you have to take the IUS feat just so you can get 2 more dagger attacks, which seems like a really odd and counter intuative feat tax.

    Any creature can make unarmed strikes, you just provoke doing it without the feat. Conceivably, any character can weapon/weapon/claw/claw/bite.

    Good point. So basically, anyone can use their normal weapon attacks(TWF or Two-handed), and claw/claw/bite in the same full attack.

    The FAQ does not say anywhere that you must keep the same type of attack(manufactured vs natural), so based on the ruling is there any precedence for disallowing Claw/Claw/Claw/Claw/Bite?

    Honestly, that's basically the question that led to this whole recent fervor: whether you can get 4xClaw with VA and Feral Mutagen.

    The strongest reasoning against it is that you cannot make four natural claw attacks prior to getting VA, so you cannot after, either. That would be adding two extra natural attacks. You can do weapon/weapon/claw/claw because anybody can do that. Some people disagree with that, though. They argue that it's simply a numbers game. Since the language in the FAQ specifically calls out that VA and Tentacle aren't really supposed to be like standard natural attacks, I find that argument unpersuasive.

    I understand, but the actual FAQ say you cannot get more attacks without saying anything about types of attacks. thus, Claw/Claw/Claw/Claw/Bite is 5 attacks. Kick/Kick/Claw/Claw/Bit is 5 attacks. In the strictest sense, you are not gaining any attacks. You ARE however changing the types of attacks from manufactured to natural. I think the intent may have been to disallow it, but I feel the wording falls short of that goal.


    Charender wrote:
    The FAQ does not say anywhere that you must keep the same type of attack(manufactured vs natural), so based on the ruling is there any precedence for disallowing Claw/Claw/Claw/Claw/Bite?

    The line in the faq is an alchemist using two weapon fighting etc.

    'Once you are using claw claw claw claw bite you're not using two weapon fighting anymore.


    Ok, hold on. I just got here, and I'm not quite sure what's going on.
    The new FAQ says:

    Quote:
    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...
    it also says
    Quote:
    The exact same restrictions would apply if your race had claws..

    So left hand weapon attack, right hand weapon attack, vestigial arm weapon attack (or weapon/weapon/weapon) is no go; same with left hand claw attack, right hand claw attack, vestigial arm weapon attack (weapon/claw/claw).

    But, a few posts latter SKR says that Nefreet's weapon/weapon/bite/claw/claw is legit, which means that with only one vestigial arm and no bite weapon/claw/claw is also legit.

    This completely contradicts the FAQ.

    What am I missing?


    Quantum Steve wrote:
    What am I missing?

    That the devs have a very clear idea of what they want, but they seem unable to put it into text.

    What they seem to want is an ability that functions one way in the hands of a novice player and another in the hands of an optimizer.

    They seem to want you to be able to do suboptimal, but "cool," stuff, like using two daggers with a shield while holding a potion. They absolutely do not want you to be able to make an optimized natural attacker that handily outdoes the classes designed to fight in melee.

    They simply have not yet found the way to word the ability to get the divider they want, and are stuck relying on trying to shame the optimizers into quiescence.


    Quantum Steve wrote:

    Ok, hold on. I just got here, and I'm not quite sure what's going on.

    The new FAQ says:

    Quote:
    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...
    it also says
    Quote:
    The exact same restrictions would apply if your race had claws..

    So left hand weapon attack, right hand weapon attack, vestigial arm weapon attack (or weapon/weapon/weapon) is no go; same with left hand claw attack, right hand claw attack, vestigial arm weapon attack (weapon/claw/claw).

    But, a few posts latter SKR says that Nefreet's weapon/weapon/bite/claw/claw is legit, which means that with only one vestigial arm and no bite weapon/claw/claw is also legit.

    This completely contradicts the FAQ.

    What am I missing?

    +1

    I am totally confused. We got one faq saying with vestigial arms, if we use an attack with one of those arms we lose an attack with our main arms that we couldn't do dagger dagger claw claw bite with it. Then we got another person saying its legal to do so......
    Which one is right?


    mplindustries wrote:
    Quantum Steve wrote:
    What am I missing?

    That the devs have a very clear idea of what they want, but they seem unable to put it into text.

    What they seem to want is an ability that functions one way in the hands of a novice player and another in the hands of an optimizer.

    They seem to want you to be able to do suboptimal, but "cool," stuff, like using two daggers with a shield while holding a potion. They absolutely do not want you to be able to make an optimized natural attacker that handily outdoes the classes designed to fight in melee.

    They simply have not yet found the way to word the ability to get the divider they want, and are stuck relying on trying to shame the optimizers into quiescence.

    Well, I suppose this is one way to interpret things.


    PDT wrote:

    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

    Actually, reading this again this does address the 4xClaws question.

    You cannot make two attacks with manufactured weapons, then make another attack with a manufactured weapon with a Vestigial Arm. It then says, "The exact same restrictions would apply if your race had claws or you had some other ability to add claws to your limbs". To me that means you cannot make two attacks with natural weapons with your normal hands, then make another attack with a natural weapon associated with a Vestigial Arm.

    So the FAQ does actually cover that case.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

    Now, I don't like how you can have claws on all four hands, but not attack with them, but I understand why.

    Now, trying to limit the number of manufactured attacks, to be less than a two armed PC, is just silly.

    I don't really see that restriction in the FAQ, and I don't know where people are getting it.

    151 to 200 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