Ok, now I've looked and looked but still see no clear answer: can the alchemist two weapon fight using two two-handed weapons (incurring all normal penalties for the off hand weapon's size and all normal two weapon fighting penalties)?
How does this come into play with crossbows (which can be wielded one handed at penalty normally)?
I see no mention of it on the FAQ, dispite there supposedly being a section for it.
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?
Because Natural Weapons don't utilize "hands" in any way whatsoever, they are only concerned with limbs, which is a different consideration.
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.
It's not about power, it's about the fact that weapon attacks and natural weapon attacks are resolved using a totally different system, and in this case, as it is in most cases, natural weapons are better.
|
At high enough levels for a BAB to support that, it is.By that logic, so is d/d/d/d/b, which we know is not legal. Open-ended statement. :)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.
I said I believe that you can... when you meet the required BAB to do so. (6BAB: two with main, two with off - and appropriate feats)
The mechanics of manufactured weapons versus natural weapons seems, to me, to be the source of your confusion. The discovery doesn't track the attacks by weapon type, but the core game mechanics with regards to weapon type are still applicable.
Pre-VA: You have a base number of 5 attacks.
After-VA: ua/ua/c/c/b, or c/c/c/c/b is still 5 attacks. You aren't gaining extra attacks from VA.
In comparison:
A four claw-armed creature, with limbs that had no limitations, and a bite weapon would be allowed 7 attacks. (ua/ua/c/c/c/c/b)
|
Standard Tengu: Has a number of attacks = 5 (ua/ua/c/c/b). You take your iterative attacks, and then take your natural attacks (as secondary attacks).
Pre-VA: You have a base number of 5 attacks.After-VA: ua/ua/c/c/b, or c/c/c/c/b is still 5 attacks. You aren't gaining extra attacks from VA.
In comparison:
A four claw-armed creature, with limbs that had no limitations, and a bite weapon would be allowed 7 attacks. (ua/ua/c/c/c/c/b)
True, but no one ever does the unarmed strikes unless they are trying to heap on a plate-full of cheese. Seriously. Can any GM tell me that they throw in those two extra UAS into that Ancient Red Dragon's attack routine? No, because it's completely stupid. And to count these UAS just to get the attacks out of vestigial arms is completely stupid, too.
|
I'm not sure there are any more questions. Just people bickering about semantics.
You can:
Weapon/Weapon/Claw/Claw/Bite
Claw/Claw/Claw/Claw/Bite
You cannot:
Weapon/Weapon/Weapon/Weapon/Bite
Weapon/Weapon/Weapon/Weapon/Claw/Claw/Bite
Weapon/Weapon/Claw/Claw/Claw/Claw/Bite
At least, using a Tengu Alchemist as an example.
Nope. Still questioning. Haven't seen two people give the same answers yet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At high enough levels for a BAB to support that, it is.By that logic, so is d/d/d/d/b, which we know is not legal. Open-ended statement. :)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.I said I believe that you can... when you meet the required BAB to do so. (6BAB: two with main, two with off - and appropriate feats)
The mechanics of manufactured weapons versus natural weapons seems, to me, to be the source of your confusion. The discovery doesn't track the attacks by weapon type, but the core game mechanics with regards to weapon type are still applicable.
Nope, I understand the difference between manufactured and natural weapons.
What I want to know is this:
"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?
I think Clawx4/Bite is ridiculous. Frankly, I think Strike/Strike/Claw/Claw/Bite is ridiculous (and part of what I based that on is SKR saying it shouldn't be allowed).
Regardless, if the intent is to allow Clawx4, the language used in the FAQ specifically disallows it. You cannot left hand, right hand, vestigial hand attack, whether you're using natural weapons or not. It needs to be fixed. My preference is to explicitly disallow the Clawx4 thing, because it's quite overpowered for what is intended to be a minor power boost to low-level Alchemists (and frankly because it's based on cheese). But, if the intent is to allow Clawx4, it still needs to be rewritten.
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?Because Natural Weapons don't utilize "hands" in any way whatsoever, they are only concerned with limbs, which is a different consideration.
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.It's not about power, it's about the fact that weapon attacks and natural weapon attacks are resolved using a totally different system, and in this case, as it is in most cases, natural weapons are better.
"Hands" was put in quotation marks because it's a stand-in for "limb that's making the attack".
And you still haven't explained why an Alchemist shouldn't qualify for Multiweapon Fighting. There are four limbs now. If I make one attack with each limb which is wielding a dagger, and I have four limbs, I'm still only making four attacks. How is there anything "extra"? Four attacks before Vestigial Arms, four attacks after - just like with claws.
There's not anything "extra". That's the point. If all we're doing is counting the number of attacks before and after gaining Vestigial Arms, the only thing preventing this is the FAQ language which says you cannot left hand, right hand, then vestigial hand attack, whether using a manufactured or natural weapon. So, if that's what prevents the manufactured multiweapon fighting, that's what prevents the natural weapon fighting.
That's shorthand, because the important part is what directly follows that limitation. (And the full text was put in the original post I quoted that from.)You misquoted the FAQ.
It's...
"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."
Not...
"You cannot left hand, right hand, vestigial hand attack"
Those are two entirely different statements.
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.
And natural weapons are still "weapons".
Which, SKR clarified, is only the case if the extra arms would grant you more attacks than a two-armed character could perform.
I see no contradiction.
And if that's the case, why no multiweapon fighting? If you're not making any more attacks than a two-armed character could perform, and you don't need to keep track of either manufactured or natural attacks, why can't I make 4 dagger attacks?
"Hands" was put in quotation marks because it's a stand-in for "limb that's making the attack".
No, I started putting "hands" in quotation marks because I was not referring to a physical hand, but rather the concept of a "hand" in relation to Pathfinder's Two-Weapon Fighting mechanics.
For example, using spiked armor does not require a hand, but it does require a "hand." Meanwhile, a claw requires a literal hand, but not a "hand."
Literal hands and limbs are not the same as "hands," unfortunately.
And you still haven't explained why an Alchemist shouldn't qualify for Multiweapon Fighting.
I absolutely did. Weapon attacks do not work like natural attacks. Vestigial Arms does not grant you additional "hands," so you can't utilize multi-weapon fighting, since that requires more "hands."
There's not anything "extra". That's the point.
Ok, then obviously, I can carry a single Greatsword and make 5 attacks, then, right? Because 5=5? It doesn't matter that I'm 5th level, right?
What you're doing is being displeased that natural weapons have an obvious advantage here because of the way they work (attack with all of them at full BAB), and trying to push that round peg into the square hole of fighting with manufactured weapons. It's not the same. It will never be the same. Natural weapons do not care about "hands" or iteratives, weapons attacks do. That's all there is to it.
And again, you can make an attack with four different daggers, you just can't do it at your highest BAB, you'd have to use your normal (probably TWF) Iteratives for them, so there's not much point unless you have each one poisoned or something like that.
Here's the basic message though, that you need to accept: Natural Weapons are better than manufactured weapons
|
|
And if that's the case, why no multiweapon fighting? If you're not making any more attacks than a two-armed character could perform, and you don't need to keep track of either manufactured or natural attacks, why can't I make 4 dagger attacks?Which, SKR clarified, is only the case if the extra arms would grant you more attacks than a two-armed character could perform.
I see no contradiction.
The same reason a normal character cannot Dagger/Dagger/Boot/Boot/Armor Spike/Helmet.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Apparently an octopus with vestigial arms could get 11 attacks.
The Shamrock is merely pointing out the absurdity of it all. If the basis of all of this is the number of available attacks, then if clawx4/bite (i.e. 5 attacks) is ok, then daggerx4/bite (i.e. 5 attacks) should be ok...one primary, three off-hand. A claw can wield a manufactured weapon, though if it does, it may not make the claw attack but makes the manufactured attack instead. So if you can attack with all four claws, you should be able to substitute those claw attacks with manufactured weapons (one primary, three off-hand, obviously), which would also mean that such a cheesy character would then qualify for the multi-weapon fighting feat.
"Hands" was put in quotation marks because it's a stand-in for "limb that's making the attack".No, I started putting "hands" in quotation marks because I was not referring to a physical hand, but rather the concept of a "hand" in relation to Pathfinder's Two-Weapon Fighting mechanics.
For example, using spiked armor does not require a hand, but it does require a "hand." Meanwhile, a claw requires a literal hand, but not a "hand."
Literal hands and limbs are not the same as "hands," unfortunately.
I fail to see the need for that distinction. Here, you have both literal and figurative limbs available to make attacks. It's not different.
And you still haven't explained why an Alchemist shouldn't qualify for Multiweapon Fighting.I absolutely did. Weapon attacks do not work like natural attacks. Vestigial Arms does not grant you additional "hands," so you can't utilize multi-weapon fighting, since that requires more "hands."
Which Vestigial Arms specifically grant you. More hands. Also, more "hands". You have those. It's the whole point of the discovery.
There's not anything "extra". That's the point.Ok, then obviously, I can carry a single Greatsword and make 5 attacks, then, right? Because 5=5? It doesn't matter that I'm 5th level, right?
Now you're being asinine. You can't get more than one attack per weapon without resorting to iteratives. I'm asking why four separate dagger attacks cannot count the same way four separate claw attacks do. Because nothing in the FAQ language disallows this if we're just going to ignore the no left hand, no right hand, no vestigial language. You have more hands. You're saying you don't have more "hands" because that's the only way you can avoid the 4 daggers being allowed.
And I'm not sure why, because you've already said the natural weapons are way more powerful.
What you're doing is being displeased that natural weapons have an obvious advantage here because of the way they work (attack with all of them at full BAB), and trying to push that round peg into the square hole of fighting with manufactured weapons. It's not the same. It will never be the same. Natural weapons do not care about "hands" or iteratives, weapons attacks do. That's all there is to it.
Natural weapons do care about limbs. You have to have the extra limbs available for extra natural weapon attacks. If those limbs are available due to Vestigial Arms (and they're not extra), you cannot claim they are extra for manufactured weapon attacks. The language of the FAQ is what bans it. But that's also the same language that implicates the exact same restriction on the claws.
Here's the basic message though, that you need to accept: Natural Weapons are better than manufactured weapons
Why do you assume I don't understand that?
The same reason a normal character cannot Dagger/Dagger/Boot/Boot/Armor Spike/Helmet.And if that's the case, why no multiweapon fighting? If you're not making any more attacks than a two-armed character could perform, and you don't need to keep track of either manufactured or natural attacks, why can't I make 4 dagger attacks?Which, SKR clarified, is only the case if the extra arms would grant you more attacks than a two-armed character could perform.
I see no contradiction.
The normal character can't do that because the normal character does not have the "hand" limbs available. A normal character does not have four arms.
Octopodes are irrelevant. You can't get 9 dagger attacks because you don't have 9 hands available to wield them. You do, however, have four hands available to wield daggers.
Either the language of the FAQ limiting your ability to make multiple attacks with weapons, and then states that this limit applies to natural weapons, functions to limit the both of them, or not at all. You are claiming it limits one but not the other.
You can't use multiweapon fighting with the vestigial arm because the vestigial arm doesn't work like an extra arm usually does. That's really all there is to it.
I don't disagree with that. But my question is, if we're assuming the arm from Vestigial Arm doesn't function like an ordinary arm for the purpose of making manufactured attacks, why are we assuming it does for natural attacks?
Because ultimately, the thing that prohibits multiweapon fighting is the language of the FAQ. It's not some difference between natural and manufactured weapons. It's that a Vestigial Arm does not function entirely like a regular one. And how it is different is explained in the FAQ language (as it currently exists). And if that FAQ language limits how you can attack with manufactured weapons, it also limits how you can attack with claws - because the FAQ explicitly says the same manufactured weapons limitation is also applied to natural weapons.
If 4xClaws is the intent, I just want it to be rewritten that the intent is to treat manufactured and natural weapons differently. Because right now the FAQ language says to treat them the same way. And you're also not supposed to worry about tracking what type of weapon makes what type of attack. But again, people are apparently interpreting this as only applying to natural weapons as well. Consistency. That's all I'm after.
|
|
It doesn't matter how many hands you have, you can only make two attacks in a round with manufactured weapons. That limitation does not go away if you sprout one, two, or four extra arms. You don't get extra weapon attacks simply because you have a hand to hold them, or a bare spot to strap on something spiky.
But the octopus gets 9 attacks.
The rules are being applied consistently. You get as many natural attacks as you are capable of making, and you get no more than two manufactured weapon attacks. Vestigial Arms changes none of this.
|
|
Yes, there is an especially stringent over-literal reading that in some small excessively biased way still supports "taking all your attacks". But that is not how PFS or any reasonable GM is going to interpret it. (Especially...
I get the feeling that you disagree with some of the people in this thread. It's my belief that reducing the opinion who disagree with you, would not make them suddenly agree with you without a compelling reason to do so. Could you provide one?
The implication, I read, from your comment is that any GM that disagrees with you (on this issue), is not reasonable.
Finally, the 6 claw attack link, has already been discussed, FAQ'd, ruled not legitimate. I respectfully disagree with any implication that thread is a gateway for an 8 attack discussion.
Apparently an octopus with vestigial arms could get 11 attacks.
I am not saying that an octopus can become the impractical/absurd creation you're implying that this discussion suggests. Creating a corner stone impossible creature does not devalue the points raised, no matter how you feel they are impractical.
It's nigh impossible for an octopus to take class levels, thus qualifying it for vestigial arms (or tentacle discovery). Furthermore, it would not be able to take 8 tentacle attacks, a bite attack, and any unarmed strikes. It's already at limb to natural attack capacity. It has no other limb capable of making an attack that hasn't been already used. Bite/beak=head, tentacle=tentacle. What's left?
I don't disagree with that. But my question is, if we're assuming the arm from Vestigial Arm doesn't function like an ordinary arm for the purpose of making manufactured attacks, why are we assuming it does for natural attacks?
To believe that clawx4/bite is legitimate, does not rely on a different arm function for each type of weapon. The arms function exactly the same with regards to each.
To compare apples to apples, d/d/d/d/b would be the equivalent of ua/ua/c/c/c/c/b, not c/c/c/c/b.
If you understand the difference between manufactured weapons, and natural weapons, you'll have to forgive my confusion. It appears to me that you continue to ask why they don't operate the same.
|
|
To believe that clawx4/bite is legitimate, does not rely on a different arm function for each type of weapon. The arms function exactly the same with regards to each.
To compare apples to apples, d/d/d/d/b would be the equivalent of ua/ua/c/c/c/c/b, not c/c/c/c/b.
If you understand the difference between manufactured weapons, and natural weapons, you'll have to forgive my confusion. It appears to me that you continue to ask why they don't operate the same.
Claws can hold manufactured weapons, right?
He's not asking you why they don't operate the same. He knows why. He's using your own argument to show you why you are wrong. EDIT: grammar.
|
|
I am not saying that an octopus can become the impractical/absurd creation you're implying that this discussion suggests. Creating a corner stone impossible creature does not devalue the points raised, no matter how you feel they are impractical.
FWIW, Nefreet mentioned the octopus. I am merely put it into context that made it relevant to this thread...as ridiculous as it may appear, it is no less ridiculous than the clawed and biting tengu alchemist also making unarmed strikes.
It's nigh impossible for an octopus to take class levels, thus qualifying it for vestigial arms (or tentacle discovery). Furthermore, it would not be able to take 8 tentacle attacks, a bite attack, and any unarmed strikes. It's already at limb to natural attack capacity. It has no other limb capable of making an attack that hasn't been already used. Bite/beak=head, tentacle=tentacle. What's left?
Let's not forget that limbless creatures are perfectly capable of making unarmed strikes...as ridiculous a proposition that may be.
We're talking about Vestigial Arms, here, though, not about a race born with 4 arms.
And how does that make a difference for the purpose of us calculating attacks for a character with Vestigial Arms? The only relevant definition of "extra" is whether it is more than a character without Vestigial Arms could get, and that is purely a numbers game. You cannot say multiweapon fighting doesn't work on the basis that multiweapon fighting gives "extra" off-hand attacks because this FAQ says that the only "extra" that is prohibited is the stuff that is greater in number than a character could do without Vestigial Arms.
So, if we're not tracking attacks, whether manufactured or natural, (explicit statement from a Developer) and "extra" means the number of attacks cannot be greater, and this is all the FAQ stands for, why is Daggerx4 bad but Clawx4 is not?
You do not have to keep manufactured and natural weapons separate. You do not have to track them. Either of them. That's the statement that was made. If you're not tracking the number of attacks, so long as any combination thereof does not exceed our baseline, there should be no problem.
You ordinarily can't dagger/dagger/armor spike for the same reason you can't THW/armor spike - it's a limitation based on hands (or "hands"). A four-armed character does not have the same limitations as a two-armed character. Nothing in the language of the ability, particularly as clarified by the FAQ, says that a four-armed creature (due to VA) is different in this regard than a naturally four-armed creature. Extra doesn't mean you don't have more "hands" available - in this context it means "'extra,' as in "'more than you would be able to make if you didn't have that discovery.'"
As long as I'm not making four dagger attacks, biting, and kicking with two bootblades, I'm not exceeding the baseline number. It shouldn't matter how I make the attacks if we're not tracking attacks and extra is defined purely based off of numbers.
To believe that clawx4/bite is legitimate, does not rely on a different arm function for each type of weapon. The arms function exactly the same with regards to each.
To compare apples to apples, d/d/d/d/b would be the equivalent of ua/ua/c/c/c/c/b, not c/c/c/c/b.
If you understand the difference between manufactured weapons, and natural weapons, you'll have to forgive my confusion. It appears to me that you continue to ask why they don't operate the same.
I have no idea what you're trying to say with different arm functions. You're arguing that a Vestigial Arm doesn't count the same as a regular arm for the purposes of figuring out how many weapons a character can wield. I'm asking how you know that. I'm also asking how you know, if a VA is not supposed to be the same as a regular arm for the purpose of manufactured weapons, it is supposed to be the same as a regular arm for the purpose of natural weapons. Despite the disparate treatment between manufactured and natural weapons, you still need the natural weapon to be attached to a limb to function. So why is a VA not a real limb for manufactured weapons, but it is for natural ones?
And how is Daggerx4/Bite equivalent to UAS/UAS/Clawx4/Bite? Nobody is talking about wanting to make 7 attacks. I don't want to make 7 attacks with Daggerx4/Bite. I want the same 5 attacks that everybody else gets. I'm not failing to recognize that ordinarily natural weapons and manufactured weapons are treated differently. I'm not addressing that at all. I'm telling you that for the purposes of adding up attacks and stopping at our baseline limit, the FAQ says you treat them all the same. The only limit that matters is the ultimate number of attacks.
You've pointed to nothing in the rules that says VA says a character cannot otherwise behave in the exact same manner as an ordinary four-armed creature except for the purpose of limiting the overall number of attacks. It doesn't say you can't multiweapon fight; it says if you do, your total attacks cannot exceed a certain number. It the intent is to exclude multiweapon fighting, something else needs to be done.
I think we're done here. If you still don't get how this works, play a different character. Thread closed.