Alchemist "Vestigial Arm" discovery question


Rules Questions

201 to 250 of 388 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

blackbloodtroll wrote:

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.

Who is doing this? I don't see where they'd be getting it, either.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Those who are incorrectly stating that claws require an "off-hand".

The PC could wield a Greatsword, and attack with two claws.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Those who are incorrectly stating that claws require an "off-hand".

Could you stop calling everyone that disagrees with you incorrect... ALL the time?

Quote:
The PC could wield a Greatsword, and attack with two claws.

Probably not. Thats using the claws to get more attacks than you would otherwise (from greatsword-----> greatsword+arms)

Toss my vote onto still slightly confused by SKR's post.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Why is a Greatsword disallowed, but two daggers is not?

That makes no sense.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Why is a Greatsword disallowed, but two daggers is not?

That makes no sense.

That's where the confusion is over. In the other faq the dagger dagger claw claw isn't even allowed or legal but skr says it is.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

This is going back to the "free hand to kick" line of thought.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Those who are incorrectly stating that claws require an "off-hand".

Could you stop calling everyone that disagrees with you incorrect... ALL the time?

Quote:
The PC could wield a Greatsword, and attack with two claws.

Probably not. Thats using the claws to get more attacks than you would otherwise (from greatsword-----> greatsword+arms)

Toss my vote onto still slightly confused by SKR's post.

Then everyone who disagrees with me is always right, and I am always wrong, and every post of mine is meaningless.

Sorry, that is not how it is, nor is it as you say, that I say it is.

Obviously, anything that I post that you disagree with, or that seems unkind to your position on something will stick out in your memory, but that is not always how it is.

Don't fling accusations like that.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
This is going back to the "free hand to kick" line of thought.

Yep sounds that way. Ill be honest was quite surprised skr even said u could uas with ur feet seeing how his earlier stance was against it. And then on top of that contradicts the recent faq of vestigial arms......he's got me all confused.


Well, if there's a question about whether weapon/weapon/claw/claw/bite is legal, that's another matter. If it is, then there should be nothing wrong with THW/claw/claw/bite.

In a previous post, SKR mentioned not allowing weapon/weapon/claw/claw/bite. But here he's used it as a specific example. The FAQ doesn't mention that scenario, likely because FAQs are typically worded to discuss the "standard" case (and a PC with claws is not "standard").

I don't like the weapon/weapon/claw/claw/bite thing, but at this point I can't really see that there's anything to actually prevent it.

*shrug*

Of course, if weapon/weapon/claw/claw/bite is illegal, the 4xclaw question is undoubtedly resolved (though I think it is now, just less obviously).

EDIT: To clarify, SKR's previous post saying he wouldn't allow weapon/weapon/claw/claw/bite didn't implicate Vestigial Arms; it was written with regard to adding kicks and knees and the like to a bite/bite/claw routine.


For reference:

fretgod99 wrote:

I'm not convinced that UAS/UAS/Claw/Claw/Bite is legal.

I wouldn't let a fighter make claw/claw/bite plus knees and kicks any more than I'd let a fighter make rapier/dagger plus knees and kicks, or punch/punch plus knees and kicks.

The rules don't let you keep on adding attacks as you think up appropriate body parts to attack with, and it doesn't let you use those extra attacks just because your hands are full. The rules say you can make one attack per round, or two with TWF, and iterative attacks according to your BAB. The rules don't care if your unarmed strike is a punch, kick, or headbutt, it just cares that you get only one additional attack if you're using TWF.

If the fighter can normally use lefthand/righthand, and is instead using leftclaw/rightclaw, he can't start making kicks, knees, and headbutts in addition to those claw attacks "just because he's not using unarmed strikes."

Mentioned it in the last thread. Again, this was a few months before the new FAQs on UAS, but I'm not aware of anything that has come out that would dispute this. Could be wrong though.

This is from the same thread where he clarified that you cannot use the Tentacle discovery to gain additional attacks that you did not have before getting the discovery (and that discovery has language identical to the Vestigial Arm discovery).

The FAQ that was just released is actually silent on this issue.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I am not sure why claws are being given a different treatment, than say, a gore, bite, or talon attack.

All RAW point to them being treated the same, when mixed with manufactured attacks.

If you don't use the same limb, then they can be used, in addition to manufactured weapon attacks.

Suddenly, there are some clamoring to treat claws as a manufactured weapon attack.

Now, I can suggest that those that really disagree, make a houserule, for home games, but that doesn't make it RAW.


Quote:

Probably not. Thats using the claws to get more attacks than you would otherwise (from greatsword-----> greatsword+arms)

Toss my vote onto still slightly confused by SKR's post.

Actually I think it is allowed. You were allowed unarmed/unarmed/claw/claw before, so you had two "hands" of "manufactured" attacks, but just didn't have actual hands to put any in, so you'd be limited to unarmed, boot blades or armor spikes.

The VA gives you actual hands to put a weapon in, so you could use your greatsword in them (once, of course, due to being a two hander.)


Its not the claw that's in question, its the arm its attached to. The arm does in fact have different rules than normal.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

If you are not getting more than two claws, or two manufactured attacks, then when does the "extra" happen?

I see the number of manufactured attacks, and know that you don't more than that.

The Discovery goes out of it's way to say it can wield weapons, but says that making an attack with said arms, prevents the use of other arms.

You look the number, and the number makes the limit.

What is used, is not really important.

It is the number, and it is the same.

No "extra".


Quote:
If you are not getting more than two claws, or two manufactured attacks, then when does the "extra" happen?

As the most restrictive reading?

When you get two claws when you would get none without the arms.

When you would get two manufactured attacks when you would get none without the arms.


Quote:

When you get two claws when you would get none without the arms.

When you would get two manufactured attacks when you would get none without the arms.

I agree that four claws is out - but did you see my post above, by chance? Unarmed/unarmed/claw/claw was allowed prior?

If so, greatsword/claw/claw would fly; It's more powerful than without the VA but not more attacks, which I think is appropriate.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
If you are not getting more than two claws, or two manufactured attacks, then when does the "extra" happen?

As the most restrictive reading?

When you get two claws when you would get none without the arms.

When you would get two manufactured attacks when you would get none without the arms.

You don't get more with the arms.

I really have tried to show that, many times.

I keep getting answers, saying one is more than two.

I don't know how to respond to that, and not sound disrespectful.


Quote:

You don't get more with the arms.

I really have tried to show that, many times.

I keep getting answers, saying one is more than two.

I don't know how to respond to that, and not sound disrespectful.

I'm on your side somewhat, but even I am confused by your meaning. You've said a few times that people have said 1>2 but I haven't seen that, and you haven't actually shown us where somebody did so when fret asked. Who has said 1 is more than two?

I will offer that I have said that 1 is EQUIVALENT to 2, IF it refers to using a two-hander versus two-weapon fighting. But that's not a change with this new FAQ, that had to do with the old armor spikes FAQ.

But that doesn't directly affect VA; the issue is whether you can use [greatsword/claw/claw or dagger/dagger/claw/claw] or if you cannot. I think you can, and I think you do too.


blackbloodtroll wrote:


I keep getting answers, saying one is more than two.

Quote me saying this somewhere, anywhere, or don't say that I said it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

The Armor Spike FAQ, has nothing to do with natural attacks.

Also, I was referring to the single two handed attack.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:


I keep getting answers, saying one is more than two.

Quote me saying this somewhere, anywhere, or don't say that I said it.

I am not calling anyone out specifically.

It's not always about you.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:


I keep getting answers, saying one is more than two.

Quote me saying this somewhere, anywhere, or don't say that I said it.

I am not calling anyone out specifically.

It's not always about you.

then quote SOMEONE saying it.


So who did say it? I don't think anyone did. That's why we don't understand what you are arguing, because you have set up an opponent to argue against who doesn't seem to be real.

On topic, so you believe you should be able to greatsword/claw/claw. I actually agree with that, due to the fact that you could perform US/US/claw/claw prior to the VA. Does anyone disagree with this? I could see an argument the other way but this is my interpretation.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Earlier, when I was told two daggers was legit, but one longspear was not.

If you don't know, then you haven't been reading the thread.


Ok, having reviewed the thread, it seems one person disagreed that Longspear/claw/claw was valid.

I think that person was wrong. It would have been helpful if you simply quoted that person's response.

No, a normal character cannot wield a longspear and two claws- but not because he doesn't have action economy, he just doesn't have the hands to hold them; so his manufactured attacks are limited to "hands-free" weapons: unarmed, boot blade, armor spikes. VA allows him hands to hold better weapons, but simply uses his existing action economy with them.

By contrast, the character does not have 4 claw attacks prior to VA, even if he has two pairs of claw attacks from two sources. Thus, VA would not allow 4 claw attacks; but it seems you're on board with this interpretation.


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.

—Pathfinder Design Team, Wednesday

this faq says that using all 4 of your arms if u have vestigial discovery is illegal. says u have 4 arms but u can only use 2, u can't even use the spare arms for natural attacks if u have claws.
so u either get 2 claws off and no manufactured attacks or get ur 2 manufactured attacks off and no natural claw attacks, etc etc.

so can someone please clear the meaning of this faq and SKR posts please?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

So, Vestigial Arms need to be empty, to use your normal hands?

What purpose do they serve?


apparently they are there to hold a shield to give you higher ac, to hold a potion to take or to hold a wand so u can cast spells with it without having to reshealth your weapon to grab it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Redneckdevil wrote:
apparently they are there to hold a shield to give you higher ac, to hold a potion to take or to hold a wand so u can cast spells with it without having to reshealth your weapon to grab it.

By some of the conditions listed here, as to what constitutes an "extra" attack, you would have to resheathe your weapon.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Redneckdevil wrote:
apparently they are there to hold a shield to give you higher ac, to hold a potion to take or to hold a wand so u can cast spells with it without having to reshealth your weapon to grab it.
By some of the conditions listed here, as to what constitutes an "extra" attack, you would have to resheathe your weapon.

Like what? I don't understand. You could wield two greatswords, you just couldn't TWF with them. You could alternate them for your iterative BAB attacks, or choose which one to use for your AOO, just not TWF with them.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

When the number of manufactured attacks are the same, and the number of natural attacks are the same, I just can't see how any of them are extra.

This free "off-hand" requirement, to attack with a claw, on an entirely different hand, doesn't make a lick of sense.

This suggests that you cannot use you Vestigial Arms, to do anything, whilst your other arms, are doing something.

Nobody is talking about attacking with two greatswords, by the way.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:


I keep getting answers, saying one is more than two.

Quote me saying this somewhere, anywhere, or don't say that I said it.

I am not calling anyone out specifically.

It's not always about you.

then quote SOMEONE saying it.

He's talking about me.

Nefreet wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
So, the Longspear, and two claws is a valid option as well?
I wouldn't think so, since a two-armed character could not wield one and make two claw attacks at the same time.

At the time I was still operating under the assumption that you couldn't perform any attacks that a two-armed character could not also perform, and I was unaware of any "two-handed" weapons that didn't take "hands" to wield.

But if we are truly operating under the premise that it is the number of attacks that matters, then a Longspear/Claw/Claw/Bite would indeed be legal.

The only problem that then arises is whether or not you could toss in a boot blade into the mix, since that would still be "5 attacks".

But, it would really me more than 5, since the Longspear consumes two "hands" worth of actions.

It gets a little muddy at this point.


Blackblood troll wrote:
When the number of manufactured attacks are the same, and the number of natural attacks are the same, I just can't see how any of them are extra.

Because some attacks take two hands to use. That means you can make fewer attacks in your non mutant form AND wielding two handed weapons. When you compare that to how many attacks you can make with your freak on its going to be lower than what you can make when dual wielding.

In short they're using a different order of operations.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Blackblood troll wrote:
When the number of manufactured attacks are the same, and the number of natural attacks are the same, I just can't see how any of them are extra.

Because some attacks take two hands to use. That means you can make fewer attacks in your non mutant form AND wielding two handed weapons. When you compare that to how many attacks you can make with your freak on its going to be lower than what you can make when dual wielding.

In short they're using a different order of operations.

Then why is dagger/dagger/claw/claw fine, but longspear/claw/claw not?

I can't see an interpretation that allows one, but disallows the other.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Then why is dagger/dagger/claw/claw fine, but longspear/claw/claw not?

I can't see an interpretation that allows one, but disallows the other.

I explained my interpretation earlier. Wielding a two-handed weapon and attacking with two claws is not something that a two-armed character could do.

It's like the comparisons that SKR outlined earlier with Tengu A and Tengu B.

Tengu A can kick/kick/claw/claw/bite, so Tengu B can dagger/dagger/claw/claw/bite.

But, at no point was Tengu A able to attack with two claws and a two-handed weapon (unless you know of a two-handed weapon that can be wielded without hands). So, following that logic, Tengu B would not be able to wield a two-handed weapon and two claws.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Nefreet wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Then why is dagger/dagger/claw/claw fine, but longspear/claw/claw not?

I can't see an interpretation that allows one, but disallows the other.

I explained my interpretation earlier. Wielding a two-handed weapon and attacking with two claws is not something that a two-armed character could do.

It's like the comparisons that SKR outlined earlier with Tengu A and Tengu B.

Tengu A can kick/kick/claw/claw/bite, so Tengu B can dagger/dagger/claw/claw/bite.

But, at no point was Tengu A able to attack with two claws and a two-handed weapon (unless you know of a two-handed weapon that can be wielded without hands). So, following that logic, Tengu B would not be able to wield a two-handed weapon and two claws.

You see claw, but I just see natural attack.

So, for me, it's:
manufactured attack/manufactured attack/natural attack/natural attack/natural attack, and that is the limit.

Now, as long as you don't go beyond this number, and you don't use a single limb, for more than one attack, then you should be fine.

No "extra" attacks.


Blackbloodtroll wrote:
Now, as long as you don't go beyond this number, and you don't use a single limb, for more than one attack, then you should be fine.

Are you still trying to argue for claw claw claw claw bite?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Blackbloodtroll wrote:
Now, as long as you don't go beyond this number, and you don't use a single limb, for more than one attack, then you should be fine.
Are you still trying to argue for claw claw claw claw bite?

No.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

BBT, I agree with you on the manufactured/manufactured/natural/natural/natural.

Where I'm on the fence is two-handed weapon/natural/natural/natural, when using Vestigial Arms.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:

So, Vestigial Arms need to be empty, to use your normal hands?

What purpose do they serve?

Nothing in the Vestigial Arms FAQ indicates that the arms in question can't be used for literally anything else you can use the arms for. You just cannot attack with them at the same time you attack with your primary arms, or vice versa. Thus, some options:

  • holding a potion
  • holding a shield
  • holding (wielding, but not attack with) a manufactured weapon
  • holding a wand
  • painting a picture
  • juggling geese
  • flipping the bird to the enemy
  • opening the locked door with thieves tools

    ... etc.

    Personally, given the Vestigial Arm FAQ, I'd say that SKR is incorrect. Yes, you could do Kick/Kick/Claw/Claw/Bite, but when the VAs come into play, the only difference would be to make to US/US/Claw/Claw/Bite, which might as well be the same thing, by his definition. But once you start using weapons in any of your arms, you nullify its partner arm for making natural attacks.

    PDT wrote:
    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.

    Emphasis mine, bolded relevant portion of the FAQ. If you're using the VAs to wield weapons, you don't get extra attacks from having claws from any source.

  • Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

    They seem to be saying, that you can't get four claws, or multiweapon fight.

    So, you only get a max of two claws, and a max of two manufactured attacks.

    That is what I am saying as well.


    Nefreet wrote:

    BBT, I agree with you on the manufactured/manufactured/natural/natural/natural.

    Where I'm on the fence is two-handed weapon/natural/natural/natural, when using Vestigial Arms.

    I think it's fine; it works like it regularly would. You get one manufactured attack with a two-hander, or TWF with one hander/lights.

    Shadow Lodge

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I'm not strictly disagreeing with that, but with how that's being interpreted.

    A standard character has two arms, two legs, and a head. Some expanded character race options can have some natural attacks, such as claws or bite attacks. A Tengu Monk with natural claws has three natural weapons, plus his normal Unarmed Strikes. His normal full attack action would be:

    US/Claw/Claw/Bite. With TWF, his full attack action would be US/US/Claw/Claw/Bite. This doesn't break limb economy, since he's attack once with each limb.

    What the PDT seem to be trying to get at with the VA FAQ is that having Vestigial Arms doesn't break limb economy for attacks. You still only get two arm attacks, regardless of which of your many arms you use.

    What SKR is saying is that that's not strictly the case. He starts out with a character who has his arms full making US with his feet. All well and good. He then takes away the barrel, and the character is now a Tengu with Claws and Bite, so he can do US/US/Claw/Claw/Bite. Still well and good, because he's using each limb once if US = Kick.

    Then he's adding in VAs, which muddle everything. VAs don't grant you extra arm economy, so you still only get two arm attacks, per the VA FAQ. What is throwing this off is that people are equating US to weapon attacks. While this is true insofar as it goes, it is not true in saying a kick is equivalent to a dagger. You can't wield a dagger with your feet.

    Personally, given the VA FAQ, I'd say that Kick/Kick/Claw/Claw/Bite is legal, as is replacing the Kicks with Boot Blades or other weapons that use the feet. But replacing Kick with something that uses another Limb entirely doesn't work.

    The number of attacks doesn't strictly matter, even though people are saying that it does. A normal character can't attack with 2 Daggers and 2 Claws at all, but he can attack with 2 Boot Blades and 2 Claws, or 2 Kicks and 2 Claws. Vestigial Arms don't change that, because they don't let you use an attack sequence a two-armed character could not have used.


    1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.
    jlighter wrote:
    blackbloodtroll wrote:

    So, Vestigial Arms need to be empty, to use your normal hands?

    What purpose do they serve?

    Nothing in the Vestigial Arms FAQ indicates that the arms in question can't be used for literally anything else you can use the arms for. You just cannot attack with them at the same time you attack with your primary arms, or vice versa. Thus, some options:

  • holding a potion
  • holding a shield
  • holding (wielding, but not attack with) a manufactured weapon
  • holding a wand
  • painting a picture
  • juggling geese
  • flipping the bird to the enemy
  • opening the locked door with thieves tools

    ... etc.

    Personally, given the Vestigial Arm FAQ, I'd say that SKR is incorrect. Yes, you could do Kick/Kick/Claw/Claw/Bite, but when the VAs come into play, the only difference would be to make to US/US/Claw/Claw/Bite, which might as well be the same thing, by his definition. But once you start using weapons in any of your arms, you nullify its partner arm for making natural attacks.

    PDT wrote:
    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.
    Emphasis mine, bolded relevant portion of the FAQ. If you're using the VAs to wield weapons, you don't get extra attacks from having claws from any source.
  • And the FAQ falls woefully short of addressing the actual question being asked.

    Any alchemist with IUS and feral mutagen can make 2 kick attacks(Main hand/offhand) with 2 claw attacks and a bite without any vestigial arms. That is 5 attacks.

    The question is how is the 5 attack limit is defined with vestigial arms
    If it is any 5 attacks, then Claw/Claw/Claw/Claw/Bite is a valid attack routine.
    If it is Main hand/Off hand+Natural attacks, then you couldn't use a two hand weapon, but you can use 2 daggers which feels weird.
    If it is Normal Manufactured attacks + All available Natural Attacks, then you could attack with a Greatsword, Kick with a boot blade, and Claw/Claw/Bite, which seems to be pushing it balance wise.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

    Well, for some, the two handed attack subsumes the main hand/off hand attacks.

    So, it's either two daggers, or one greatsword, plus two claws attacks.

    Sczarni

    Starfinder Charter Superscriber
    jlighter wrote:
    You can't wield a dagger with your feet.

    Actually, you can. They're called Blade Boots.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

    This seems to be that some see certain manufactured attacks as "extra", whilst others are not.

    I don't see that.

    I look at it, and see the number of attacks, and not what is being used to make them.

    So, no x4 daggers, and x4 claws.

    This seems to be lost on some, as they focus on how they reached that number, and not the end result.

    That seems to be the wrong focus, in my eyes.


    Nefreet wrote:
    jlighter wrote:
    You can't wield a dagger with your feet.
    Actually, you can. They're called Blade Boots.

    So, this whole time when you were saying dagger/dagger/claw/claw/bite, you really meant blade boot/blade boot/claw/claw/bite?

    What a lot of unnecessary confusion. In the future, try to use the proper terms for things like weapons.


    Quantum Steve wrote:
    Nefreet wrote:
    jlighter wrote:
    You can't wield a dagger with your feet.
    Actually, you can. They're called Blade Boots.

    So, this whole time when you were saying dagger/dagger/claw/claw/bite, you really meant blade boot/blade boot/claw/claw/bite?

    What a lot of unnecessary confusion. In the future, try to use the proper terms for things like weapons.

    Because there are a couple ways to get those attacks.

    Unarmed Strike(Kick)/Unarmed Strike(Kick)
    Boot Blade/Boot Blade

    There are probably other ways I am not aware of. It really doesn't matter because as long as there is any way to get your normal manufactured weapon attacks without using your hands or head, then you can get 5 attacks without vestigial arms.

    201 to 250 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