|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Here's the layout from 1-12
Race: Half-Orc (for the Toothy Racial Trait)
1-2: Ranger(No Archetype)
3-12: Alchemist(Beastmorph/Vivisectionist)
-Combat style feat at 2nd level: Aspect of the Beast: Claws of the Beast
-Discoveries integral to build (by class feature or Extra Discovery feat):Tentacle, Feral Mutagen, Vestigial Arm x2, Parasitic Twin
The basic premise is to maximize (I know, 'maximize' is a dirty word) the amount of natural attacks this character can get by increasing the number of viable anatomical locations present on the character. This is depicted as such: Character's head, 2 arms, 2 vestigial arms, and Parasitic twin's head. This totals to 6 places where natural weapons can reside.
The character starts out with a 1d4 bite attack from the Half-orc trait Toothy. As the character reaches 2nd level, he takes his only Natural Weapon Combat Style bonus feat in the form of Aspect of the Beast: Claws of the beast, giving him two 1d4 claw attacks, one for each arm. As the character takes levels in Alchemist, however, things become a bit blurry,rule-wise. He gains two vestigial arms and the parasitic twin discoveries, granting him two more arms and another head. Afterwards, the alchemist takes feral mutagen, which allows the alchemist to grow two 1d6 claws and a 1d8 bite attack while under the effects of a mutagen. These natural weapons will be granted to the vestigial arms and the head of the parasitic twin.
While the premise of vestigial limbs was never intended to grant additional attacks, I have a few arguments to pose that may show this to be legal:
1. Vestigial limbs are allowed to hold weapons and used in attacks, as per Two-Weapon Fighting. Is it far-flung that the hands "hold" claws instead of manufactured weapons? From which point, it's a matter of natural weapon rules, not a question of iterative attacks with manufactured weapons and holding more than two weapons? To put it shortly, the claws give the extra attacks, not the limbs.
2. If the extra natural attacks cannot be granted, but only replace any instance of a regular attack, then it still stands to have iterative unarmed strikes replaced by these vestigial arm claw attacks. This is in reference to the rule call by Sean K. Reynolds for the Tentacle Discovery:
What 0gre said, and note that the tentacle discovery specifically calls out that it doesn't give you any extra attacks. So, like the wings, you can use it in place of one of your other attacks (the ability description is calling out that you can attack with it because it also has the grab ability, which you wouldn't otherwise know).
Again, we could really use a hard look at the language in the C.R. and establish a format for these sorts of things to follow.
This is a very convoluted argument, I know. Though it's not the first time this issue was brought up, I don't think it was looked upon in this way. I've been dying to give this a shot in PFS, but I don't want to go through the trouble of getting to the point of levelling this character where these mechanics become smashed down by the GM.
So, again, would this fly in PFS rules? Thanks!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My advice, when it comes to Pathfinder Society or any other similar organized games, is not to rely on builds that may be legal. It only leads to frustration and/or confrontation. Neither conducive to good group play.
So, again, would this fly in PFS rules?
Even if it would, do you want to go over all that with every DM you ever sit down with? Taking up the DMs time, table time, and even then occasionally getting table variation that breaks half your character?
I know that sounds harsh, but in my experience running PFS is hectic and stressful and the last thing I need is to spend ten minutes looking up rules and dev quotes to vet one character sheet.
That said, my immediate instinct would be to not allow V.arms to grant extra attacks, even with claws attached. It would take some good argument and citations to make claws override the prohibition on extra attacks.
|
|
So, again, would this fly in PFS rules?Even if it would, do you want to go over all that with every DM you ever sit down with? Taking up the DMs time, table time, and even then occasionally getting table variation that breaks half your character?
I know that sounds harsh, but in my experience running PFS is hectic and stressful and the last thing I need is to spend ten minutes looking up rules and dev quotes to vet one character sheet.
That said, my immediate instinct would be to not allow V.arms to grant extra attacks, even with claws attached. It would take some good argument and citations to make claws override the prohibition on extra attacks.
As with Tim before you, I'd have to agree with your logic in regards bringing this up every game. I think that makes a point in of itself. It's been nearly a year since these mechanics hit the shelves, and they've been discussed before. Where's the errata?
|
Aspect of the Beast: Claws of the Beast has prereq of having wild shape.
Being a beastmorph doesn't cut it enough for it.
1. Sure, maybe I or some1 would give you 6 attacks, but that would have most likely -10 on each ?! but I seriously doubt you can have it.
2. People can always say if they don't wanna play with someone if it turns "too good".
|
|
I think you need Multiattack and Multiweapon fighting feats to have a chance of making it fly. May not be required by RAW, but will present a much better argument for your PC.
Unfortunately, Multiattack as a feat is a monster feat, which isn't allowed in PFS. Also, this merely reduces the penalty on secondary natural attacks from -5 to -2, and doesn't have any bearing on how many natural attacks can be made.
Multiweapon fighting is only in regards to 3 or more manufactured/unarmed strikes as separate weapons in a full attack.
|
|
Aspect of the Beast: Claws of the Beast has prereq of having wild shape.
Being a beastmorph doesn't cut it enough for it.1. Sure, maybe I or some1 would give you 6 attacks, but that would have most likely -10 on each ?! but I seriously doubt you can have it.
2. People can always say if they don't wanna play with someone if it turns "too good".
Beastmorph has nothing to do with the requirement on Aspect of the Beast, as it can be picked up by rangers as a bonus Combat Style Feat without having to meet the prerequisites.
I'm not sure how you're calculating -10, as natural attacks, at worst, get a -5 to attack rolls for being secondary, which would probably only apply to the Tentacle discovery. The claws and bites are all primary.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Here's another thought:
If you were totally unarmed (as far as manufactured weapons), and had the claws on your "real" arms, you'd have claw/claw/bite, and that's it.
As per the rules for Vestigial Arms, if you take the same setup and put swords in the hands of the vestigial arms, you would not gain any extra attacks.
So why would you gain more attacks if you just switch the positioning of the claws and swords?
As much as your advice chafes me, you're right...... but I must know :)
Well, I had to go on record as saying so.
Personally (i.e. this ruling has all the authority granted to it by virtue of being posted by some random dude on the internet), I'd call the vestigial limbs secondary natural attacks and just go from there.
A strict reading of the rules would seem to indicate that if you used a dagger in one 'real' hand to attack and then used the rules for combining natural and manufactured. Therefore that such a creature would indeed get a dagger attack, plus three secondary natural off-hand weapon attacks per the Two-Weapon Fighting rules. So granting them as secondary attacks doesn't seem too out of line.
I don't see any justification to allow the vestigial twin to be granted a bite attack. So, I would not allow it to 'stack' with toothy.
The big problem is that neither aspect of beast or feral mutagen says they grant extra natural attacks only that they each provide two primary natural attacks. It could be argue that these natural attacks don't stack.
Again, expect major table variation.
|
|
Here's another thought:
If you were totally unarmed (as far as manufactured weapons), and had the claws on your "real" arms, you'd have claw/claw/bite, and that's it.
As per the rules for Vestigial Arms, if you take the same setup and put swords in the hands of the vestigial arms, you would not gain any extra attacks.
So why would you gain more attacks if you just switch the positioning of the claws and swords?
Hmm, this poses another question, are monks the only class that can utilize unarmed strikes from all parts of their body? Or is this a general rule for all unarmed strikes?
Hmm, this poses another question, are monks the only class that can utilize unarmed strikes all parts of their body?
Unarmed Attacks: "Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon..."
(Monk) Unarmed Strike: "A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet."
So everyone can punch, kick, and headbutt, a monk can also use elbows and knees.
|
|
Aspect of the Beast: Claws of the Beast has prereq of having wild shape.
Being a beastmorph doesn't cut it enough for it.1. Sure, maybe I or some1 would give you 6 attacks, but that would have most likely -10 on each ?! but I seriously doubt you can have it.
2. People can always say if they don't wanna play with someone if it turns "too good".Beastmorph has nothing to do with the requirement on Aspect of the Beast, as it can be picked up by rangers as a bonus Combat Style Feat without having to meet the prerequisites.
I'm not sure how you're calculating -10, as natural attacks, at worst, get a -5 to attack rolls for being secondary, which would probably only apply to the Tentacle discovery. The claws and bites are all primary.
I didn't calculate dude, think about it, every additional attacks generaly adds minuses, just how many minuses do you think you would have even if we had right formula to calculate it? Dozens if you ask me.
In any case scenario you have a specific rule on vestigial arms and alch discoveries that they "don't add any extra attacks". Its simple as that. I just don't see why would you want this anyway?
|
|
Hmm, this poses another question, are monks the only class that can utilize unarmed strikes all parts of their body?
Unarmed Attacks: "Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon..."
(Monk) Unarmed Strike: "A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet."
So everyone can punch, kick, and headbutt, a monk can also use elbows and knees.
Well, from this I suppose I can create something interesting, without having to deal with all that additional limb, tentacle, and parasitic twin nonsense.
I didn't calculate dude, think about it, every additional attacks generaly adds minuses, just how many minuses do you think you would have even if we had right formula to calculate it? Dozens if you ask me.
In any case scenario you have a specific rule on vestigial arms and alch discoveries that they "don't add any extra attacks". Its simple as that. I just don't see why would you want this anyway?
Well, the reason I was interested in this is that Natural Attacks run differently than a manufactured weapon/unarmed strike in a full attack.
If you use nothing but natural attacks in a full-attack action, each primary natural weapon receives a single attack at your highest total attack bonus and full strength bonus, while each secondary natural weapon receives a single attack at your highest total attack bonus -5 at half your strength bonus.
If you include manufactured weapons/unarmed strikes along with your natural weapon attacks, ALL natural weapons become secondary for the the full attack.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Well, from this I suppose I can create something interesting, without having to deal with all that additional limb, tentacle, and parasitic twin nonsense.Hmm, this poses another question, are monks the only class that can utilize unarmed strikes all parts of their body?
Unarmed Attacks: "Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon..."
(Monk) Unarmed Strike: "A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet."
So everyone can punch, kick, and headbutt, a monk can also use elbows and knees.
I'm really curious what your concept is that's equally well served by unarmed strike rules as by having a tentacled, lifeless twin.
|
|
I'm really curious what your concept is that's equally well served by unarmed strike rules as by having a tentacled, lifeless twin.
Well, think of an ascetic alchemist that tries to follow the path of physical enlightenment not by discipline, but by evolutionary and mutational 'perfection', with a deep understanding of anatomy to deliver a barrage of natural and unarmed strikes with precise blows via sneak attack.
|
|
The parasitic twin also is fluff text from what I see. You have him dormant in your body, it wouldn't add you 2nd bite attack, so in best case scenario you would have 5 attacks from those.
Other then that, drinking feral mutagen wouldn't give you extra 2 attacks it would most likely replace those claw attacks. But I just don't see enough data to confirm that it would. Maybe its 5 or 3, I wouldn't know.
|
|
The parasitic twin also is fluff text from what I see. You have him dormant in your body, it wouldn't add you 2nd bite attack, so in best case scenario you would have 5 attacks from those.
** spoiler omitted **
Other then that, drinking feral mutagen wouldn't give you extra 2 attacks it would most likely replace those claw attacks. But I just don't see enough data to confirm that it would. Maybe its 5 or 3, I wouldn't know.
Well, you can pop it in and out as a standard action. However, upon reading it more closely it's labelled helpless, but that just raises a whole ton of other questions, like how do the vestigial arms grip things if they belong to a helpless parasite twin?
I'm washing my hands of this whole extra limb thing. It's causing nothing but trouble. I'll just have to be happy with a bite, two claws, and unarmed strikes via kicks.