Alchemist "Vestigial Arm" discovery question


Rules Questions

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

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.


fretgod99 wrote:
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.

fretgod99 wrote:
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.

Shadow Lodge

Point of interest: Multi-Weapon Fighting doesn't grant additional attacks. It merely reduces the penalties for using the multiple attacks, in the same fashion that Two-Weapon Fighting doesn't grant you any attacks, but reduces the penalties for fighting with two weapons.

The Exchange

Dash Lestowe wrote:
jlighter wrote:
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. :)
At high enough levels for a BAB to support that, it is.
fretgod99 wrote:
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.

Spoiler:
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)

Liberty's Edge

Dash Lestowe wrote:

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.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Someone might want to compile a list of exactly what is in question now.

I don't want to comment on what has already been answered, unless it is still being questioned.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

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.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I don't see what the question is, then. Up until SKR corrected me the only question was whether you could Claw/Claw/Claw/Claw. We know the answer to that, now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dash Lestowe wrote:
Dash Lestowe wrote:
jlighter wrote:
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. :)
At high enough levels for a BAB to support that, it is.
fretgod99 wrote:
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:

fretgod99 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."

"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.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

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.


mplindustries wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
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.

fretgod99 wrote:
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.


Nefreet wrote:

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.

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.)
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.

And natural weapons are still "weapons".

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

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.


Nefreet wrote:

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?


fretgod99 wrote:
"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.

fretgod99 wrote:
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."

fretgod99 wrote:
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

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
fretgod99 wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

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?

The same reason a normal character cannot Dagger/Dagger/Boot/Boot/Armor Spike/Helmet.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

An Octopus can get 9 attacks. Why can't I get 9 dagger attacks?

Because natural weapons are handled differently from manufactured weapons.

Liberty's Edge

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.


mplindustries wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
"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.

Quote:
fretgod99 wrote:
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.

Quote:
fretgod99 wrote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

An intelligent octopus can get 11 attacks without Vestigial Arms.

Tentacle/Tentacle/Tentacle/Tentacle/Tentacle/Tentacle/Tentacle/Tentacle/Bit e/Unarmed Strike/Unarmed Strike.

So an octopus with Vestigial Arms could indeed get 11 attacks.

...but no more.


Nefreet wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

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?
The same reason a normal character cannot Dagger/Dagger/Boot/Boot/Armor Spike/Helmet.

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.

mplindustries wrote:
Literal hands and limbs are not the same as "hands," unfortunately.

It's not even that simple. Creatures with multiple arms typically do treat their additional hands as additional off-hands. So there is a correlation between hands and off-hands, it's just not applied consistently.

I understand that people are frustrated with the idea of a character exchanging the potential to attack with a sub-par weapon they'd never use to attack with a more optimal choice. But I think the point of the attack cap is to keep the potential attacks per round from escalating even further. So 5 attacks might be more than the 3 that character would usually make, but at least it doesn't open up the potential for 7.

Unarmed strikes were fuzzy in 3.5, and are equally so in PF. That's another subject entirely, though.


Rhatahema wrote:
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.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Shamrock, what is currently stopping a character from attacking with a Dagger/Dagger/Armor Spikes?


fretgod99 wrote:
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.

The "restrictions" the FAQ refers to, that natural weapons share with manufactured weapons, is that if the weapon is held or attached to the vestigial arm, it can't be used in such a way as to gain the character a greater number of attacks per round than the most that character could otherwise make.

There are otherwise no limitations placed on using the arm to wield manufactured weapons. You can attack with a weapon in each of your three arms, you just can't do that with the example character, who otherwise has, at most, two attacks per round. (though I did note earlier the contradiction that having racial claws would allow you to make those attacks)

The vestigial arm doesn't provide the character with additional off-hands, but your capacity to gain claw attacks isn't limited by your number of off-hands, only the number of hands. Presumably. The rules for gaining duplicate natural attacks and whether or not they extend to your new appendages are sparse and derived from inference. That issue relates to this FAQ, but is distinct from the points made by the FAQ.

Nefreet wrote:
...what is currently stopping a character from attacking with a Dagger/Dagger/Armor Spikes?

You're going to have to be more specific. If two of those attacks are primary (+6/+1), nothing. If one of the daggers is off-hand, then the language of armor spikes prevents it.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

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.


Nefreet wrote:

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.

With the example alchemist taking vestigial arm, who lacks a high BAB and can only gain two manufactured weapon attacks through two-weapon fighting. Yes, right on all points.

Otherwise, sprouting extra hands typically does grant you extra off-hands. Check the Multi-Armed trait from the Race Builder in ARG for one such example. So vestigial arm is an exception to the norm.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

We're talking about Vestigial Arms, here, though, not about a race born with 4 arms.


Nefreet wrote:
We're talking about Vestigial Arms, here, though, not about a race born with 4 arms.

Haha, good! Just making sure we were on the same page! :)


Wow, around a year break and still talking about the same stuff.
At least there's an errata now (finally)

Spoiler:

Nefreet wrote:

An intelligent octopus can get 11 attacks without Vestigial Arms.

Tentacle/Tentacle/Tentacle/Tentacle/Tentacle/Tentacle/Tentacle/Tentacle/Bit e/Unarmed Strike/Unarmed Strike.

So an octopus with Vestigial Arms could indeed get 11 attacks.

...but no more.

not specifically calling you out here, however it seems to me that's there's some fundamental misunderstanding on a few points that I've seen; also they seem to require extremely creative body topography

Any unarmed strikes above would each provoke AoOs unless the creature also had IUS. Moreover, contrary to what I've seen suggested repeatedly in this latest discussion, the same "limb" cannot be used for multiple [attack] actions outside of iterative attacks(I distinctly remember an errata about this). This means those unarmed strikes are body blows of some kind (for an octopus), which dual availability is questionable. (Unless TWF/MWF with unarmed strikes has been sufficiently resolved to be 'always and unrestrictedly' during my absence)

In game terms, this means the sequence is
UA -4 (primary, TWF-offhand light(-2), no IUS- provoke AoO/addl -4 to deal lethal damage)
UA -8 (offhand, TWF-offhand light(-2), no IUS- provoke AoO<-only matters vs Combat Reflexes/addl -4 to deal lethal damage)
Bite -2 (Multiattack)
Tentacle x8 -5 each (Multiattack)

to even remotely begin to have these additional penalties to the natural attacks be worthwhile, the creature's bonus damage from Str/enchantments needs to be astronomical

regardless of petty details I bring up in that spoiler, I fail to see how the errata is significantly unclear.

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 considering this part: "The exact same restrictions would apply if your race had claws or you had some other ability to add claws to your limbs: the text of both discoveries says they do not give you any extra attacks per round, whether used as natural weapons, wielding manufactured weapons, or adding natural weapons to a limb that didn't originally have natural weapons.")
The only matter that still may be unclear is how 2H weapons interact with VAs. However, the text of the discovery coupled with the errata makes a pretty strong case against it as it only ever talks about VAs being used as an "offhand" or "vestigial". To illustrate 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...". I can almost 100% guarantee that the intent of this statement is to distinguish between the 3, implying that any "use"[attack] of the vestigial arm counts as a "vestigial hand weapon attack", including, but not limited to aiding the swing of a 2H weapon. -I admit, this needs to be more clear.

The errata is entirely in line with SKR's expressed feelings on the subject (and his declaration that the original intent was to be even more useless than it is now)

Personally, I explicitly disagree with the notion that "monsters should have different rules than players", but that is how RAW operates.
Honestly, I'm disappointed in the errata, but it is what it is (and it's arguably very fair).

For those who want to argue/think it's mundane I take this position, I'm the guy who advocated this and this (which could potentially be 8 now, with some of the race stuff discussed directly above -- which would be perfect as it's exactly the reference I was going for :p )

The Exchange

Archaeik wrote:
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.

HangarFlying wrote:
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?

fretgod99 wrote:
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.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Archaeik wrote:
** spoiler omitted **

Well aware. No misunderstanding.

Liberty's Edge

Dash Lestowe wrote:

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.

Liberty's Edge

Dash Lestowe wrote:
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.


Nefreet wrote:
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.


Dash Lestowe wrote:

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.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

I think we're done here. If you still don't get how this works, play a different character. Thread closed.

351 to 388 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