Eidolon + Multiple Weapons question

[Moppy]

Can someone please help with a rules Q:

Where does it define how many arms an eidolon needs to gain multiple weapon attacks, or how many attacks it gets?

It's quite well defined for natural attacks. From the APG, summoner section (emphasis is mine)

"Max. Attacks: This indicates the maximum number of natural attacks that the eidolon is allowed to possess at the given level. If the eidolon is at its maximum, it cannot take evolutions that grant additional natural attacks. This does not include attacks made with weapons."

1) The max attack limit only applied to natural attacks. What is the limit for weapon attacks?

2) What does this mean by not including natural attacks? Do they mean if it is already at its natural attack limit, it can still take evolutions that grant it additional weapon attacks?

Now

"Limbs (Ex): An eidolon grows an additional pair of limbs ... they can be made into arms, complete with hands. The eidolon does not gain any additional natural attacks for an additional pair of arms ... Arms that have hands can be used to wield weapons, if the eidolon is proficient. This evolution can be selected more than once."

1) Does it need 1 set of limbs per weapon or can it make multiple attacks with one weapon, like a Pathfinder fighter does? This would mean it would not need to take TWF (or MWF) penalties.

2) It is still unclear how many weapon attacks it gets.

My assumption (and this is only an assumption because I cannot find the rule) is that

a) Max attacks applies to natural attacks only (RAW).

b) It gets one weapon attack for each extra limbs evolution that is equipped with one weapon, ignoring the 'max attacks' attribute. (My interpretation and pure guesswork, it could be just 1 attack, or it might not need multiple weapons - like a fighter).

c) If it has Multiweapon Fighting feat, it uses the full BAB with multi-weapon penalty of -2 for the first and -6 for each subsequent strike (my interpretation). It does not subtract 5 for each subsequent attack like a fighter would (15/10/5...)

d) Multi-attack from eidolon powers specifically only applies to natural attacks (RAW).

Can someone please sort me out! Specific references would be really helpful.

Thanks

edit: fixed formatting codes, clarified c)

edit: I checked Univeral Monster Rules in Bestiary.

Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action (although often a creature must forgo one natural attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a claw, tentacle, or slam). Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack's original type.

OK not helpful. First "often" means?

Second "attack with their weapons normally" means? So BAB 12 is +12/+6? So what if it has 4 extra arm evolutions and 4 swords? "normally" would prevent it from qualifying for more attacks after the 2nd due to adjusted BAB being less than 6. Am slightly more convinced now it would have 4 at +12.

[Artanthos]

You can get one weapon attack per hand the eidolon posses. With a total of 5 limbs(arms) evolutions, you can swing 10 swords.

All weapons after the first are off hand.

Yes, you use normal iterative rules for determining attack values / damage.

Yes, this means you could in theory build an eidolon with 20 weapons.

No, it is not really advised.

[Moppy]

Is there a citation for this (number of weapons equals number of hands, and use iterative attacks)?

OK I guess number of weapons = number of hands is fairly obvious but the iterative attacks is what I can't find.

EDIT: Also they can use bows, right?

[Din_]

You think too small, my friend. With a maximum possible 31 points (5 times Extra Evolution feat taken) and picking up only arms with the proficiency evolution on a Bipedal base, you can acquire Limbs(arms) 14 times.

You can have 15 pairs of arms, or 30 weapons.

[Moppy]

I can actually get more than 30 arms but that's not the problem right now. The problem is, under RAW how many attacks it has, their BAB and if can use 2handers or bows.

edit: Actually 2-handers seems possible in RAW, but would (obviously) need 2 arms.

[Din_]

Full-attack action

Multiattack

The closest thing I could find related to number of hands required was in the weapons part here. As long as the player is the appropriate size for the weapon, it won't be stepped up (being too small for a two-handed weapon means you can't use it). Otherwise, as long as you have enough hands open, there's nothing specifically against it.

As to getting more than 30, the only other thing I could think of adding would be adding a temporary four through Greater Evolution Surge. I'm fairly certain there's no way to get more than that without using a custom eidolon base form.

Edit: Not sure what happens if you use a bunch of double weapons (non-split).

[Artanthos]

By RAW there is nothing to stop you from using multiple bows or two-handed weapons. Everything after the first is still off-hand though.

How do you plan to afford enchanting that many weapons?

Do you have the strength to carry those weapons if something happens to your eidolon?

You were planning on taking at least a few defenses right?

[Moppy]

Artanthos wrote:

By RAW there is nothing to stop you from using multiple bows or two-handed weapons. Everything after the first is still off-hand though.

How do you plan to afford enchanting that many weapons?

Do you have the strength to carry those weapons if something happens to your eidolon?

You were planning on taking at least a few defenses right?

I don't know what it should use, because the BAB and precise number of attacks is still undefined under RAW.

The only answer is yours (iterative) but there is no citation you have given to verify it (which makes it RAI), and it's contradictory with claims of "insane number of arms" in that an iterative BAB around 15 would only allow about 3 attacks. I accept it could have more arms than it could use (!) but why would you then be asking me if I can equip them all? 3 swords isn't really a problem. Most (smart) fighters have 3 incase he breaks one :-) So I am thinking you are think it's swinging 20 swords and this can't work with an iterative BAB.

Also an interative BAB would imply that it was swinging the same weapon multiple times (like a greatsword fighter). Most (I admit not all) multi-weapon stuff gets separate additional attacks added to the base ones e.g. multiweapon feats.

I will probably house-rule it because I can't find a rule for it.

[Grick]

There's some FAQ requests for this issue here if anyone is interested.

[Archaeik]

Moppy wrote:

Artanthos wrote:

By RAW there is nothing to stop you from using multiple bows or two-handed weapons. Everything after the first is still off-hand though.

How do you plan to afford enchanting that many weapons?

Do you have the strength to carry those weapons if something happens to your eidolon?

You were planning on taking at least a few defenses right?

I don't know what it should use, because the BAB and precise number of attacks is still undefined under RAW.

The only answer is yours (iterative) but there is no citation you have given to verify it (which makes it RAI), and it's contradictory with claims of "insane number of arms" in that an iterative BAB around 15 would only allow about 3 attacks. I accept it could have more arms than it could use (!) but why would you then be asking me if I can equip them all?

Also an interative BAB would imply that it was swinging the same weapon multiple times (like a greatsword fighter). Most (I admit not all) multi-weapon stuff gets separate additional attacks added to the base ones.

What?? BAB iteratives is explicitly defined...

You can have up to 4 iterative attacks (based on BAB), you gain a new one at 6, 11, and 16. These attacks can ONLY be used for manufactured weapons.

Now, you can gain extra attacks through TWF if you choose...
-You can always take 1 extra attack, applying the appropriate penalties
-TWF feat reduces those penalties
-ITWF feat gives you yet 1 more extra attack (2nd)
-GTWF feat gives you 1 more extra attack again (3rd)

Multiweapon Fighting slightly changes this by allowing 1 extra attack per offhand...
Now, it is commonly assumed that every new arm on an eidolon also grants a new offhand (because any of them can be used to hold natural weapons), but these offhand attacks are not iterative in the way you claim, but extra to an iterative routine

[Moppy]

Archaeik wrote:

What?? BAB iteratives is explicitly defined...

OK yea i meant BAB and attacks are not defined in the case of an eidolon with swords but a fair call by you as my language was loose.

Archaeik wrote:

Now, it is commonly assumed that every new arm on an eidolon also grants a new offhand

I note you agree with me that there doesn't seem be a RAW definition (of how an eidolon with multiple swords works).

[Grick]

Archaeik wrote:

Multiweapon Fighting slightly changes this by allowing 1 extra attack per offhand...

Multiweapon Fighting: "Benefit: Penalties for fighting with multiple weapons are reduced by –2 with the primary hand and by –6 with off hands."

Multiweapon fighting is specifically a replacement for the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms. It does not allow any extra attacks, all it does is reduce the penalties.

Hence the FAQ request to see if more arms means more off-hand attacks when TWF/MWF.

[Artanthos]

I'll use an example of a biped with a total of 3 limbs(arms) evolutions and a BAB of 6 as an example, assumming all weapons are shortswords, a +4 str and he has multiweapon fighting.

Attk: +8/+3/+8/+8/+8/+8/+8
Dmg: 1d6 +4 (x2) / 1d6 +2 (x5)

References: Multi-weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Fighting, Double Slice

Pay attention to the rules stating normal conditions if you do not have the feats. My Previous post was not RAI, it was RAW. If you build with a stupid number of arms, you can get a stupid number of attacks.

Multi-weapon Fighting wrote:

Normal: A creature without this feat takes a –6 penalty on attacks made with its primary hand and a –10 penalty on attacks made with all of its off hands. (It has one primary hand, and all the others are off hands.)

As for the weapons comment, sure a fighter can carry 3 swords, but try to afford enchanting 20 swords to the same level. It is just not cost effective.

[Moppy]

Artanthos wrote:

My Previous post was not RAI, it was RAW. If you build with a stupid number of arms, you can get a stupid number of attacks.

Multi-weapon Fighting wrote:

Benefit: Penalties for fighting with multiple weapons are reduced by –2 with the primary hand and by –6 with off hands.

Normal: A creature without this feat takes a –6 penalty on attacks made with its primary hand and a –10 penalty on attacks made with all of its off hands. (It has one primary hand, and all the others are off hands.) See Two-Weapon Fighting in the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook.

I don't read that as allowing additional attacks. Fine, so all the extra arms are offhands. Where does it say it gets 1 extra hit per offhand?

TWF does not apply. And in any case only grants 1 bonus hit per creature not 1 hit per arm.

[Grick]

Moppy wrote:

Where does it say it gets 1 extra hit per offhand?

Monster statblocks.

The core rules are written with the assumption of normalcy, meaning biped with two arms. This is why there's no core rule about multiple arms and multiple off-hands.

So do monsters break the rules because they're monsters, or does their being monsters create rules that were not applicable in core? This is the question of the FAQ linked upthread.

[Artanthos]

Moppy wrote:

Artanthos wrote:

My Previous post was not RAI, it was RAW. If you build with a stupid number of arms, you can get a stupid number of attacks.

Multi-weapon Fighting wrote:

Benefit: Penalties for fighting with multiple weapons are reduced by –2 with the primary hand and by –6 with off hands.

Normal: A creature without this feat takes a –6 penalty on attacks made with its primary hand and a –10 penalty on attacks made with all of its off hands. (It has one primary hand, and all the others are off hands.) See Two-Weapon Fighting in the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook.

I don't read that as allowing additional attacks. Fine, so all the extra arms are offhands. Where does it say it gets 1 extra hit per offhand?

TWF does not apply. And in any case only grants 1 bonus hit per creature not 1 hit per arm.

I highlighted it for you. Under no contortion of the english language can that be interpreted to mean only a single off-hand attack is permitted.

What this means is, I don't need multi-weapon fighting to swing 20 swords. I can do that without the feat, if I have 20 hands. The only thing the feat grants is the ability to do so with reduced penalties.

The same is true for two-weapon fighting. I can swing two weapons without the feat, I am just not very accurate.

[Moppy]

Artanthos wrote:

Under no contortion of the english language can that be interpreted to mean only a single off-hand attack is permitted.

I disagree

Let me write it differently just in case the concept is clouding the issue.

"–10 penalty on attacks made with all of its off hands."

vs

"+1 on drawings made with all of its pencils."

How many pencils can it draw with at once?

This actually can be (easily) read in two ways

a) a drawing made with all of its pencils (USED AT ONCE! big fist of colour!)

b) any drawing made with any combination of pencils that it owns

Hence my problem. It could be drawing with 10, or with 3, or even with 1.

"I can hit that target with ALL of my guns!"

That says NOTHING about how many I can shoot at once. It can mean - if you get me any one of them, I will hit the target with it.

e.g. "I can hit that target with ALL of my guns (except that one there because the barrel is bent"

edit: I just realised a possible source confusion. "off hands" actually can refer to a thing (an offhand attack) and not a body part or "hand".

[Artanthos]

If you delibrately take off-hands out of contect of the rest of the sentence perhaps you could come to that conclusion. In context, not very likely.

Multi-weapon attack wrote:

Benefit: Penalties for fighting with multiple weapons are reduced by –2 with the primary hand and by –6 with off hands

This sets the context. Primary hand (singular) and off-hands (plural) are quite clearly body parts.

Futher setting the context:

Multi-weapon fighting wrote:

Prerequisites: Dex 13, three or more hands.

If your are refusing to acknowledge something that is very explicitly spelled out in RAW, you either lack basic reading comprehension or you're a troll.

Either way, further arguement is pointless.

[Moppy]

Artanthos wrote:

If you delibrately take off-hands out of contect of the rest of the sentence perhaps you could come to that conclusion. In context, not very likely.

Multi-weapon attack wrote:

Benefit: Penalties for fighting with multiple weapons are reduced by –2 with the primary hand and by –6 with off hands

This sets the context. Primary hand (singular) and off-hands (plural) are quite clearly body parts.

Futher setting the context:

Multi-weapon fighting wrote:

Prerequisites: Dex 13, three or more hands.

If your are refusing to acknowledge something that is very explicitly spelled out in RAW, you either lack basic reading comprehension or you're a troll.

Either way, further arguement is pointless.

If you have to look at context, then that by definition is RAI. "As written" should not require context.

I never made any assumptions as to context on my part, which is why I say the rule given is not RAW.

Whichever way you look at the definition of hand, it is still not clear what "I can attack with all of my hands" means. That sentence has more than one interpretation. Did I mean "I can attack with all of my hands simultaneously" or did I mean "All my hands are capable of attacking i.e. they aren't tiny weak T-rex paws or something?"

That is the point I thought you missed, and why I see your interpretation as RAI.