Alchemist "Vestigial Arm" discovery question


Rules Questions

301 to 350 of 388 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

mplindustries wrote:

So, now we have confirmation that Race with claws + 2 Vestigial Arms + Feral Mutagen = 5 attacks.

No, just the opposite.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
mplindustries wrote:

So, now we have confirmation that Race with claws + 2 Vestigial Arms + Feral Mutagen = 5 attacks.

No, just the opposite.

At least I'm not the only one scratching my head.

Just probably the only one doing it with my foot.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

BigNorseWolf wrote:
At least I'm not the only one scratching my head.

I'm utterly confused also.

I kinda hate the concept 5 attacks is allowed.


So, since vestigial arms only tracks total number of attacks, is 4 daggers back in?


Okay after some head scratching I get it now I think.
Its only number of attacks but it states that u can't use 3 or more of limbs for manufactured or natural attacks if they are the vestigial arms. Because u have 5 attacks if u have the feral mutagen.
But that also means that by that same logic if someone had feral mutagen and took the tentacle discovery they could do dagger dagger tentacle because tentacle is replace the bite? Would that be correct?
All in all I dislike players getting the 5 attacks because now they gained even more dmg because uas for normal people are 1d3s bludgeoning and now they can raise that 1d3 to whatever single handed dmg and whatever type. Thats a powerful feat right there. But rules allow it and I won't discredit, just won't use it at my table which is every persons right in homebrews, society completely legal though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
mplindustries wrote:

So, now we have confirmation that Race with claws + 2 Vestigial Arms + Feral Mutagen = 5 attacks.

No, just the opposite.

Let's take a look at what Sean K Reynolds said:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

It's number of attacks. It's not tracking natural attacks vs. manufactured weapon attacks.

As the FAQ says: "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."

Nothing in that says you need to be tracking what type of weapon you're making an attack with.

So, since anyone can make unarmed strikes, and anyone can dual wield, anyone can dual wield unarmed strikes.

Therefore, a race with claws and a bite will be capable of making Unarmed Strike/Unarmed Strike/Claw/Claw/Bite, which is five attacks. If you get a feral mutagen and two vestigial arms, now you are allowed to make a maximum of 5 attacks, which means you can make claw x4/bite, since that's 5.

SKR specifically said you are not tracking what type of attack in any way, all you're doing is counting total number of attacks. 5 = 5, so it's legal and confirmed.

You still can't multi-weapon fight, though, because you still have to follow all the other rules, including only having a main and an off-hand, etc.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Quantum Steve wrote:
So, since vestigial arms only tracks total number of attacks, is 4 daggers back in?

No. The FAQ specifically calls this out as not being valid.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

It seems pretty clear to me, for the most part.

Look at the number before, then number after, the arms.

As long as the number after, is not more than the number before, you are good.

This doesn't mean you get to attack with four daggers, but you can still attack with two daggers, and two claws.

Shadow Lodge

Definitely scratching my head with BigNorseWolf here. The two seem to be contrary rulings.

The Exchange

Haven't been following this thread, just looked now. I thought the FAQ was clear (I was surprised to see as much conversation continuing).

I wasn't thinking unarmed/unarmed/claw/claw/bite was valid, but if is, and if the type doesn't matter, does that mean this clearly stated question is still valid?

Sczarni

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

I encourage you to read the rest of this thread. Claw/Claw/Claw/Claw would not be a valid attack sequence.


Nefreet wrote:
I encourage you to read the rest of this thread. Claw/Claw/Claw/Claw would not be a valid attack sequence.

I have read the thread and absolutely cannot understand where you are getting the idea that claw x 4 is invalid.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

This is a complex issue. If any player is still unable to figure out what's allowed and what's not, perhaps that player should pursue a different "build" for the PC in question.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Basically, if your manufactured weapon, and natural weapon attacks are equal to, or less than they were before the arms, then you are fine.

It really doesn't matter which manufactured/natural weapon you use, but the number that's important.

You had a max of two manufactured attacks before(ex:dagger/dagger)?

That stays the same.

You had the max of three natural attacks before(ex:claw/claw/bite)?

That stays the same.

So, you have more options, and that includes having those two manufactured attacks be two daggers, or a greatsword, in addition to two claws, instead of boot blades or unarmed strikes, but the number is still limited, as before.

Follow that, and you will be fine.


Blackblood: that's what I thought until he said you track natural natural attacks vs. manufactured weapon attacks.


And they said it wasn't supposed to be a powerful discovery because it didn't have a lvl...

Sovereign Court

My personal interpretation given the RAW concerning vestigial arms, combined with my desire to see cool things like two-handed TWF:

The vestigial arms typically aren't capable of doing much, and just because you have four arms doesn't mean you have the coordination of using all four independently and simultaneously. Thus, no matter how many vestigial arms you have, I'd limit the alchemist to only being able to wield (and subsequently attack with) two weapons at a time. This does allow an alchemist to fight with a pair of two-handed weapons, but not four one-handed or light weapons.

I'd also say that this still falls under Two-Weapon Fighting rather than Multi-Weapon Fighting, which I've always house ruled as being more-or-less equivalent to the point that if a creature with Two-Weapon Fighting permanently acquires another arm or two, then TWF turns into MWF. This is implied in the rules, but its a very between the lines implication - I'm sure due in part to the fact that this pretty much never happens.

On a related note, I'd still rule that aside from certain weapons like pistols and hand crossbows, you can't dual wield multiple ranged weapons. However, I'd probably allow a player to load with one pair of arms while they fire with the other.

EDIT: I tried to read all of the posts up to this point, but couldn't manage, so someone could very well have already said all of this before. I just thought I'd make sure. This is actually a question that I've seen asked here a couple times before and this was the conclusion that I reached last time.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Basically, if your manufactured weapon, and natural weapon attacks are equal to, or less than they were before the arms, then you are fine.

It really doesn't matter which manufactured/natural weapon you use, but the number that's important.

You had a max of two manufactured attacks before(ex:dagger/dagger)?

That stays the same.

You had the max of three natural attacks before(ex:claw/claw/bite)?

That stays the same.

So, you have more options, and that includes having those two manufactured attacks be two daggers, or a greatsword, in addition to two claws, instead of boot blades or unarmed strikes, but the number is still limited, as before.

Follow that, and you will be fine.

This is how I read it and how I intend on playing it.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Blackblood: that's what I thought until he said you track natural natural attacks vs. manufactured weapon attacks.

That's the exact opposite of what I said:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

It's number of attacks. It's not tracking natural attacks vs. manufactured weapon attacks.

As the FAQ says: "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."
Nothing in that says you need to be tracking what type of weapon you're making an attack with.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Blackblood: that's what I thought until he said you track natural natural attacks vs. manufactured weapon attacks.
That's the exact opposite of what I said:

whooops left a don't out of there.

I was at blackbloods interpretation until you said you don't track natural vs. manufactured attacks.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

Ah, then it is I that has been wrong this whole time.

<.<

>.>

*backs away before anyone notices*


mplindustries wrote:
You still can't multi-weapon fight, though, because you still have to follow all the other rules, including only having a main and an off-hand, etc.

I honestly don't really get that distinction, though. You normally have only one off-hand attack because you normally have only one other hand. If 5=5, why are we parsing between natural and manufactured attacks now? This FAQ says you don't care about what kinds of attacks they are, you only care about numbers. If the "no right hand, left hand, and vestigial arm" weapon attacks sentence means you can't use all manufactured weapons, why doesn't it also mean you can't use all natural weapons? If you can make 4 claw attacks, why not 4 dagger attacks, if all we're worried about is the number staying the same?

If you didn't have any more off-hands before the discovery, you also didn't have any other place to put the extra claws before the discovery.


Redneckdevil wrote:
And they said it wasn't supposed to be a powerful discovery because it didn't have a lvl...

It's not that great... I mean it only gives an extra 2 attacks per round, and secondary attacks at that. One secondary natural attack = 1 feat. There's plenty of ways for other classes to pick up secondary natural attacks for only a single feat with no level requirements, right?

Liberty's Edge

Ultimately, the summation I get out of this thread is that any player that actually attempts to make a dumb build like this is cheesing the game: really, are you honestly going to tell me that your tengu alchemist who has two claws and a bite always precedes it's natural attacks with a TWF unarmed strike combination? No, I don't think so. But yet, as soon as it grows those vestigial arms, it somehow remembers that it was always able to do that TWF unarmed strike combination that it never used, so it gets five attacks when it would realistically only use three.

Give me a break. Request denied.


HangarFlying wrote:

Ultimately, the summation I get out of this thread is that any player that actually attempts to make a dumb build like this is cheesing the game: really, are you honestly going to tell me that your tengu alchemist who has two claws and a bite always precedes it's natural attacks with a TWF unarmed strike combination? No, I don't think so. But yet, as soon as it grows those vestigial arms, it somehow remembers that it was always able to do that TWF unarmed strike combination that it never used, so it gets five attacks when it would realistically only use three.

Give me a break. Request denied.

I don't really see it as cheese, only because the restrictions on vestigial arm and how many potential attacks per round you receive are a concept outside of in-game logic to start. Most creatures with multiple arms and claws get to use all those claws to attack. I think a tengu alchemist who spends three discoveries for 2 claws and a bite might be optimized, but is not too crazy by itself.

That said, I don't think it'd be an unreasonable house rule to say "You may not use your vestigial arm to make attacks." More restrictive, but way, way simpler.

Shadow Lodge

Rhatahema wrote:
That said, I don't think it'd be an unreasonable house rule to say "You may not use your vestigial arm to make attacks." More restrictive, but way, way simpler.

Seems a little bit more in line with what feels like the original intent of the discovery, as well. I can't really think of a situation where it might be strictly better to use the vestigials than the regulars, unless you're just using the vestigials to give you more weapon options than otherwise (one-handed bludgeon, one-handed pierce, one-handed slash, one-handed potion, or some such).


fretgod99 wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
You still can't multi-weapon fight, though, because you still have to follow all the other rules, including only having a main and an off-hand, etc.

I honestly don't really get that distinction, though. You normally have only one off-hand attack because you normally have only one other hand. If 5=5, why are we parsing between natural and manufactured attacks now? This FAQ says you don't care about what kinds of attacks they are, you only care about numbers. If the "no right hand, left hand, and vestigial arm" weapon attacks sentence means you can't use all manufactured weapons, why doesn't it also mean you can't use all natural weapons? If you can make 4 claw attacks, why not 4 dagger attacks, if all we're worried about is the number staying the same?

If you didn't have any more off-hands before the discovery, you also didn't have any other place to put the extra claws before the discovery.

Natural Attacks don't work the same way Weapon Attacks do, that's why. Natural Attacks work where-in you attack with all of them once, but you get no iteratives.

Weapon Attacks, however, use your iteratives and TWF. If you had a +6 BAB and Improved TWF, you could make four weapon attacks with four different daggers, but two of those would be iteratives. It'd be +6/+6/+1/+1 (or, well, really, +4/+4/-1/-1) and you could do each of those 4 with a different dagger, no problem.

You would not get +4/+4/+4/+4, however, since that's multi-weapon fighting and you don't qualify for that.

5=5, but you need to follow the rest of the rules, too. In other words, just as we already knew, having lots of natural attacks is generally better than using weapons.


But why don't you qualify for multiweapon fighting? Multiweapon fighting is just two weapon fighting when you have three or more hands. You now have three or more hands. Ergo, you qualify for multiweapon fighting.

5=5. Still following the rest of the rules.


Quantum Steve wrote:
Redneckdevil wrote:
And they said it wasn't supposed to be a powerful discovery because it didn't have a lvl...
It's not that great... I mean it only gives an extra 2 attacks per round, and secondary attacks at that. One secondary natural attack = 1 feat. There's plenty of ways for other classes to pick up secondary natural attacks for only a single feat with no level requirements, right?

Claws aren't secondary attacks if your attack routine is Clawx4/Bite. That's two primary natural attacks on top of three more primary attacks (which is five primary natural attacks, an attack combination that wouldn't be possible without Vestigial Arms).

It's also a combination using a right weapon attack, a left weapon attack, and then vestigial hand weapon attacks, though. And that's something explicitly disallowed by the language of the FAQ, because that same restriction applies if you're using natural weapons (even those added to Vestigial Arms by other abilities).


Quantum Steve wrote:
Redneckdevil wrote:
And they said it wasn't supposed to be a powerful discovery because it didn't have a lvl...
It's not that great... I mean it only gives an extra 2 attacks per round, and secondary attacks at that. One secondary natural attack = 1 feat. There's plenty of ways for other classes to pick up secondary natural attacks for only a single feat with no level requirements, right?

What I meant by powerful is that lets say a lvl one character had a beast race with claws and a bite without the feat iuas and took 2 weapon fighting. Just as they are.

To get 5 atks they get 1d3 bludgeoning dmg plus str, 1d3 bludgeoning dmg plus 1/2 str clawx2 at full str bite at 1 1/2 str. On top of that the uas are at a -6 to hit because they are doing lethal on top of 2 weapon fighting.
The same class takes vestigial arms discovery with 2 weapon fighting.
They now can do whatever dmg due to what ever weapon they are carrying (1d4, 1d6, 1d8, etc etc) AND are not to limited to just bludgeoning dmg, they can choose between slashing, piercing, or bludgeoning AND do not take a -6 to hit because they wanna do lethal dmg because now with more options they can bring that -6 down to a -2.
That's 3 VERY beneficial things the vestigial arms gives now when doing 5 attacks. Different range of dice for dmg, different range for type of damage, and improves ur ability to hit while taking all ur natural attacks as well.

That's what I meant that this discovery that isn't supposed to be powerful because it doesn't have a lvl restriction on it is indeed powerful now due to the options it gives you that u didn't have before. One simple discovery gives u those 3 things.

The Exchange

fretgod99 wrote:

Claws aren't secondary attacks if your attack routine is Clawx4/Bite. That's two primary natural attacks on top of three more primary attacks (which is five primary natural attacks, an attack combination that wouldn't be possible without Vestigial Arms).

It's also a combination using a right weapon attack, a left weapon attack, and then vestigial hand weapon attacks, though. And that's something explicitly disallowed by the language of the FAQ, because that same restriction applies if you're using natural weapons (even those added to Vestigial Arms by other abilities).

Where are you reading that it says the combination of attacks must be the same type of attacks that you could do without out Vestigial Arm?

Redneckdevil wrote:
That's what I meant that this discovery that isn't supposed to be powerful because it doesn't have a lvl restriction on it is indeed powerful now due to the options it gives you that u didn't have before. One simple discovery gives u those 3 things.

What race gives you two claws and a bite at first level?

Additionally, you can't take VA at first level.

Redneckdevil wrote:
They now can do whatever dmg due to what ever weapon they are carrying (1d4, 1d6, 1d8, etc etc) AND are not to limited to just bludgeoning dmg, they can choose between slashing, piercing, or bludgeoning AND do not take a -6 to hit because they wanna do lethal dmg because now with more options they can bring that -6 down to a -2.

That sounds like multi-weapon fighting. I believe the FAQ says no on that. - 4 daggers, or (2 daggers, and two claws)


Quote:
Where are you reading that it says the combination of attacks must be the same type of attacks that you could do without out Vestigial Arm?

Because the rule is that it you couldn't do it before, you can't do it now. This means you must come up with a valid combination, pre-VA, then adjust for having extra hands to hold things in after VA.

The Exchange

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Blackblood: that's what I thought until he said you track natural natural attacks vs. manufactured weapon attacks.

That's the exact opposite of what I said:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

It's number of attacks. It's not tracking natural attacks vs. manufactured weapon attacks.

As the FAQ says: "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."
Nothing in that says you need to be tracking what type of weapon you're making an attack with.
Bizbag wrote:
Because the rule is that it you couldn't do it before, you can't do it now. This means you must come up with a valid combination, pre-VA, then adjust for having extra hands to hold things in after VA.

Seems like those two statements are in opposition.


FAQ 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: 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.

From the language used in the FAQ. I don't see why this should be applicable to only manufactured and not natural weapons, since it specifically mentions that the restriction applies to natural weapons as well.

Liberty's Edge

Rhatahema wrote:

I don't really see it as cheese, only because the restrictions on vestigial arm and how many potential attacks per round you receive are a concept outside of in-game logic to start. Most creatures with multiple arms and claws get to use all those claws to attack. I think a tengu alchemist who spends three discoveries for 2 claws and a bite might be optimized, but is not too crazy by itself.

That said, I don't think it'd be an unreasonable house rule to say "You may not use your vestigial arm to make attacks." More restrictive, but way, way simpler.

Well, the entire combat mechanic is a game restriction that is entirely outside of in-game logic.

I can understand a tengu alchemist spending the discoveries to get claw/claw/bite attacks. What I don't see is (especially since this tengu alchemist probably doesn't have the TWF feat or the IUS feat) is him doing uas/uas/claw/claw/bite considering his attack penalties would be -4/-8/-5/-5/-5...that pretty much defeats the purpose of getting the natural attack discoveries in the first place, not even considering the two AoO he would provoke.

So, this tengu alchemist is running around doing three attacks. As soon as he pops on those clawed vestigial arms he now acknowledges that he could have theoretically made 5 attacks all along so he's going to now claw/claw/claw/claw/bite all at full BAB. That is the cheese to which I refer.


Dash Lestowe wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Blackblood: that's what I thought until he said you track natural natural attacks vs. manufactured weapon attacks.

That's the exact opposite of what I said:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

It's number of attacks. It's not tracking natural attacks vs. manufactured weapon attacks.

As the FAQ says: "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."
Nothing in that says you need to be tracking what type of weapon you're making an attack with.
Bizbag wrote:
Because the rule is that it you couldn't do it before, you can't do it now. This means you must come up with a valid combination, pre-VA, then adjust for having extra hands to hold things in after VA.
Seems like those two statements are in opposition.

There's also the implication from this statement:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
As Jiggy said: compare identical builds except one doesn't have the discovery and the other does; the one without the discovery is the default, and having the discovery doesn't allow you to exceed that default.


Dash Lestowe wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:

Claws aren't secondary attacks if your attack routine is Clawx4/Bite. That's two primary natural attacks on top of three more primary attacks (which is five primary natural attacks, an attack combination that wouldn't be possible without Vestigial Arms).

It's also a combination using a right weapon attack, a left weapon attack, and then vestigial hand weapon attacks, though. And that's something explicitly disallowed by the language of the FAQ, because that same restriction applies if you're using natural weapons (even those added to Vestigial Arms by other abilities).

Where are you reading that it says the combination of attacks must be the same type of attacks that you could do without out Vestigial Arm?

Redneckdevil wrote:
That's what I meant that this discovery that isn't supposed to be powerful because it doesn't have a lvl restriction on it is indeed powerful now due to the options it gives you that u didn't have before. One simple discovery gives u those 3 things.

What race gives you two claws and a bite at first level?

Additionally, you can't take VA at first level.

Redneckdevil wrote:
They now can do whatever dmg due to what ever weapon they are carrying (1d4, 1d6, 1d8, etc etc) AND are not to limited to just bludgeoning dmg, they can choose between slashing, piercing, or bludgeoning AND do not take a -6 to hit because they wanna do lethal dmg because now with more options they can bring that -6 down to a -2.
That sounds like multi-weapon fighting. I believe the FAQ says no on that. - 4 daggers, or (2 daggers, and two claws)

Eh the faq gave an example of a character that was first lvl so I was giving one. What I was trying to state was that they said the discovery wasn't powerful and I was showing that it was.

By taking the discovery u are replacing the uas with a weapon, and that doesn't seem powerful until u look at the mechanics and that 1d3+str at a -6 to hit can turn into ANY dice size dmg because weapons allow many different amounts of dmg, AND changes the bludgeoning to whatever type AND can raise the +hit from -6 to a -2. It doesn't sound powerful until u look at the math and see that if someone wanted 2weapon atks with 3 natural atks they were limited to 2x1d3 bludgeoning 2xclaw 1xbite, now because of this not powerful discovery they can up the 1d3 to say a 1d8 plus whatever enchantmentsb that were on it, up the chance to hit and can be any type of type of dmg ALONG with their 3 natural attacks. That discovery up so many things..
But its part of the rules now for society game play and completely legal. Just it mechanically wise is a very powerful discovery


Quote:

There's also the implication from this statement:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
As Jiggy said: compare identical builds except one doesn't have the discovery and the other does; the one without the discovery is the default, and having the discovery doesn't allow you to exceed that default.

This is basically what I meant. If you have a valid manufactured/manufactured/claw/claw/bite routine, e.g. Unarmed/unarmed/c/c/b, it's still valid with VA, but with more options for weapon types due to having free hands: e.g. Dagger/dagger/c/c/b or greataxe/c/c/b.

However, as is fairly well agreed upon, 4 claw/bite was not valid before, nor is greataxe/greataxe/bite, so neither is possible with VA (ignoring BAB iteratives of course).

The Exchange

fretgod99 wrote:
From the language used in the FAQ. I don't see why this should be applicable to only manufactured and not natural weapons, since it specifically mentions that the restriction applies to natural weapons as well.

It's my thought they do apply the same. Keep in mind that there's a mechanical differences between natural and manufactured weapons in how you determine how many of each you can take.

When your BAB is sufficient enough to make 4 iterative attacks, The wording present says you should be able to put a manufactured weapon in each hand, and take one attack (with the appropriate bonuses/minuses) from each.

Seems that at that point, they are the same.

Bizbag wrote:
However, as is fairly well agreed upon, 4 claw/bite was not valid before, nor is greataxe/greataxe/bite, so neither is possible with VA (ignoring BAB iteratives of course).

SKR said "Nothing in that says you need to be tracking what type of weapon you're making an attack with."

If ua/ua/c/c/b is legal, then so is c/c/c/c/b.

Shadow Lodge

Dash Lestowe wrote:
Bizbag wrote:
However, as is fairly well agreed upon, 4 claw/bite was not valid before, nor is greataxe/greataxe/bite, so neither is possible with VA (ignoring BAB iteratives of course).

SKR said "Nothing in that says you need to be tracking what type of weapon you're making an attack with."

If ua/ua/c/c/b is legal, then so is c/c/c/c/b.

By that logic, so is d/d/d/d/b, which we know is not legal. Open-ended statement. :)

The Exchange

At high enough levels for a BAB to support that, it is.


My question is not about extra attacks I just want 100% confirmation that if I have 4 arms via vestigial arms I can do the following on any given round while armed/holding a trident, shield and bow.

Round 1. Shoot the bow upto my max number of attacks and keep my shield bonus.

Round 2. Grap trident with two hands and jab someone in the face getting 1.5 str and power attack bonuses. Again keeping shield bonus.

I think yes. Any answers appreciated. Thanks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemartes wrote:

My question is not about extra attacks I just want 100% confirmation that if I have 4 arms via vestigial arms I can do the following on any given round while armed/holding a trident, shield and bow.

Round 1. Shoot the bow upto my max number of attacks and keep my shield bonus.

Round 2. Grap trident with two hands and jab someone in the face getting 1.5 str and power attack bonuses. Again keeping shield bonus.

I think yes. Any answers appreciated. Thanks.

Eveything else aside about the validity of attack routines, this one is an easy no.

Bow requires two hands to wield.
A shield, excluding a buckler, requires an arm to itself to wield. A buckler can be used in conjunction with a weapon, but you lose the AC bonus without the proper feats.
A trident wielded with two hands, would require shockingly, 2 hands.

Thus, you would need 5 hands to shoot the bow, keep the AC bonus, and two hand a trident.

Edit: Just noticed you intended to do those on separate turns, not all at the same time.

Yes you could shoot a bow and use a shield in a 3rd arm, or use a trident and a shield in a 3rd arm. And between using either bow or trident you could swap weapons.


Well with 4 arms no swap is needed.

Thanks Claxon.


I may not be in good company, but I'm in a lot of it.


fretgod99 wrote:

But why don't you qualify for multiweapon fighting? Multiweapon fighting is just two weapon fighting when you have three or more hands. You now have three or more hands. Ergo, you qualify for multiweapon fighting.

5=5. Still following the rest of the rules.

No, Multi-Weapon Fighting is not the same as two-weapon fighting with more than two hands, it's a separate thing.

Two Weapon Fighting gives you a single extra attack. Multi-Weapon Fighting gives you extra attacks equal to your extra hands. There's a huge difference.

Vestigial Arms give you more hands, but not more "hands."

Dash Lestowe wrote:
What race gives you two claws and a bite at first level?

Tengu, for one, all on their own.

Additionally, any race (Tiefling, for example) that gives two claw attacks can get a bite just by being Adopted by Half-Orcs (since there is a half-orc trait to get a bite attack). Yes, I realize how stupid it is that you can get a bite attack from being adopted, and I've pointed it out before, but it's legal.


fretgod99 wrote:

But why don't you qualify for multiweapon fighting? Multiweapon fighting is just two weapon fighting when you have three or more hands. You now have three or more hands. Ergo, you qualify for multiweapon fighting.

5=5. Still following the rest of the rules.

I believe the only reason you don't receive multiweapon fighting is because the arm doesn't grant additional attacks. If it qualified you for multiweapon fighting, you'd be getting extra attacks. In other words, the designers don't want it to follow the usual rules, so it doesn't.

It's taken me a while, but I do see one point that needs revision in the FAQ:

PDT wrote:

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 instead took the vestigial arm discovery and put a weapon in that arm's hand, on your turn you can make [examples of two attacks]

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.

Emphasis on what I see as an oversight. Yes, it doesn't matter if the example alchemist wants to make a claw attack with his vestigial arm or a manufactured weapon attack, since they're both under the same restriction of attacks per round, but it does change the example situation if he is a race with claws. That ups his potential attacks per round from 2 to 4, and would allow him to attack with all three held weapons.

In general, I think the FAQ needs to be revised with the points made in SKR's later posts. For instance

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

"more" should be changed to "a greater number of attacks per round". Otherwise, "more" is as ambiguous as "extra"; It can just as easily read as "more attack options". I would also suggest that the elaboration on the process of adding up your potential attacks per round be included in the FAQ. It could be presented as a 2 step process.


Dash Lestowe wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
From the language used in the FAQ. I don't see why this should be applicable to only manufactured and not natural weapons, since it specifically mentions that the restriction applies to natural weapons as well.

It's my thought they do apply the same. Keep in mind that there's a mechanical differences between natural and manufactured weapons in how you determine how many of each you can take.

When your BAB is sufficient enough to make 4 iterative attacks, The wording present says you should be able to put a manufactured weapon in each hand, and take one attack (with the appropriate bonuses/minuses) from each.

Seems that at that point, they are the same.

Bizbag wrote:
However, as is fairly well agreed upon, 4 claw/bite was not valid before, nor is greataxe/greataxe/bite, so neither is possible with VA (ignoring BAB iteratives of course).

SKR said "Nothing in that says you need to be tracking what type of weapon you're making an attack with."

If ua/ua/c/c/b is legal, then so is c/c/c/c/b.

If you're not tracking what type of weapon you're making each attack with, why can you not make four attacks with daggers? If you're treating manufactured and natural weapons differently, you're tracking what type of weapon you're making each attack with. A four-armed creature is different than a two-armed creature, so the ordinary limitations ought not apply.

If all we're concerned about is numbers, I should be able to make the same number of attacks with whichever weapons I have available, whether they be daggers, unarmed strikes, or natural weapons. If all this FAQ restricts is numbers, then that's all it restricts.

The language before that in the FAQ makes note of how one attacks with weapons. That would restrict this sort of thing, but it refers to weapons, not manufactured weapons. Since it doesn't specifically apply to just manufactured weapons, it ought to apply to everything, particularly since the very next line says that those same restrictions apply to whatever type of weapon you are wielding (whether manufactured, natural, natural attached to a vestigial limb).

"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."

"The exact same restrictions would apply if your race had claws or you had some other ability to add claws to your limbs".

You cannot "left hand, right hand, vestigial hand" attack on the same turn. This is true whether you are using daggers or claws.

If you are allowed to make four claw attacks in the same round, why does this language appear in the FAQ?


mplindustries wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:

But why don't you qualify for multiweapon fighting? Multiweapon fighting is just two weapon fighting when you have three or more hands. You now have three or more hands. Ergo, you qualify for multiweapon fighting.

5=5. Still following the rest of the rules.

No, Multi-Weapon Fighting is not the same as two-weapon fighting with more than two hands, it's a separate thing.

Two Weapon Fighting gives you a single extra attack. Multi-Weapon Fighting gives you extra attacks equal to your extra hands. There's a huge difference.

Vestigial Arms give you more hands, but not more "hands."

That's sort of the point, though. If hands does not mean "hands" for the purpose of Multi-Weapon Fighting to add more weapons to get more attacks (which expressly and literally is Two-Weapon Fighting with more than two hands - "Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms."), why does hands mean "hands" for the purpose of adding more claws to get more attacks?

As written, the FAQ says the restriction on attacking with weapons in normal and vestigial hands applies whether the weapons are manufactured or natural. Either that applies to both manufactured and natural weapons or it applies to neither (unless and until it's edited). So if you can claim that it does not apply to natural weapons, why am I not allowed to claim it does not apply to manufactured weapons?

If the argument against four dagger attacks and a bite is that -2/-2/-2/-2/-5 with one being at full STR and four being at half STR is too powerful, how is +0/+0/+0/+0/+0 all at full STR not? Especially when the attack sequence that gets you there (strike/strike/claw/claw/bite) is -2/-2/-5/-5/-5 with one being at full STR.

Shadow Lodge

Rhatahema wrote:
It's taken me a while, but I do see one point that needs revision in the FAQ:
PDT wrote:

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 instead took the vestigial arm discovery and put a weapon in that arm's hand, on your turn you can make [examples of two attacks]

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.

Emphasis on what I see as an oversight. Yes, it doesn't matter if the example alchemist wants to make a claw attack with his vestigial arm or a manufactured weapon attack, since they're both under the same restriction of attacks per round, but it does change the example situation if he is a race with claws. That ups his potential attacks per round from 2 to 4, and would allow him to attack with all three held weapons.

In general, I think the FAQ needs to be revised with...

This is essentially the point I was latching onto when I made my assertion that SKR's post was incorrect. I don't actually have a problem with his post, and his later stated interpretation, being correct, but the language is unclear, and to my mind, contradictory between his post and the PDT post for the reasons Rhatahema and Fretgod99 have just stated.

301 to 350 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