|
If and alchemist took Vestigial Arm discovery twice(4 arms total) could he wield a 2h weapon in each set of arms? If so what would the penalties be with and without TWF feat?
Short answer:
With TWF Feat: -4 main hand/-4 off-handWithout TWF Feat: -6 main hand/-10 off-hand
Long answer:
The short answer only assumes that one can apply TWF to wielding multiple 2-handed weapons. The rules never intended or details for something like this to happen. With that in mind, two questions must be asked:
1. Can a main hand and an off-hand involve more than one limb each?
2. Is the damage bonus of the off-hand explicitly 1/2 your STR modifier, or is 1/2 of your 1.5x STR modifier (a.k.a. 3/4 your STR modifier).
Supposedly there used to be examples of monsters that would make use of more than one 2-handed weapon using multiple limbs, but they don't exist in the Pathfinder beastiaries. With this in mind, there's no benchmark to glean information from.
EDIT:
As the rules for TWF never state that the 'main-hand' weapon must be one-handed or light, you may be able to get away with using a 2-handed weapon as a main-hand in two hands, and using one of your vestigial arms to hold a light weapon, which will merely give you a -2 penalty on all attack rolls as far as RAW is concerned.
Bottom-line: Don't pull this in PFS, this will cause many headaches and resentment. Otherwise, consult your private group GM for house-ruling, stipulations, and side-effects. Wielding 2 Two-handers is not for everyone.
|
|
Volkspanzer, you have the penalties correct.
Once you two weapon fight, you no longer gain 1.5 str to damage. You only get x1 and x.5. You do get the bonus from power attack.
This has been addressed by developers.
If you could point me to the quote for the damage bonuses, I'd be very grateful! In the meantime, I'll start searching for it.
Yeah, BBT, I'd also like to see that quote. I thought the classic 2H weapon + armor spikes of two-weapon fighting was 1.5x and 0.5x, respectively.
OP, I would consider skipping the whole TWF line and just 2Hing one big sword + claws from the other two hands via feral mutagen. Or using weapons that won't incur such huge penalties. A double weapon might actually be nice here. Weapon Focus, Imp. Crit, etc... affect both ends w/ one feat, and on rounds you can't full attack you can just use one end of it as a 2H weapon for extra str bonus to damage.
|
|
My thread has a quote from a developer specifically saying it wasn't intended to be used to make a 4 armed dual wielding 2 handed weapons monster...
Yeah, it seems to be the case. However, you can still make use of the limbs in making an all-around fighter (TWF or 2-handed) with incredible action economy:
TWF:
1. Place a cestus in each original hand, giving you a light melee weapon that can still leave your hands free.
2. Place a hand-crossbow in each vestigial hand, giving a "light" ranged weapon that can be reloaded by your regular hands.
3. Take the appropriate feats (TWF, EWP:Hand Crossbow, Rapid Reload).
4. Result: A TWF character that can always melee or ranged attack without dropping or drawing a single weapon while threatening at every opportunity.
This doesn't give you the opportunity to make more attacks than you should, but through a full attack you're given far more versatility. The creature next to you might attack you if you try to fire your crossbows? Take him out with the cestas, and use the rest of your iterative TWF attacks on something else with your crossbows.
2-handed:
1. Grab a bow in your original hands or vestigial hands.
2. Grab a 2-handed weapon with the other pair of hands.
3. Result: A two-handed weapon character that can always melee or ranged attack without dropping or drawing a single weapon while threatening at every opportunity (except when grappled).
_____________________
The only problem that may arise from this is the ability to make a ranged weapon attack and a melee attack inside of a full-attack action. This is possible, yes?
Again, there are NO extra attacks in this logic, merely more opportunities to make full attacks, which result in more attacks over the course of a battle.
|
You are asking if you can split your attack actions between a great sword and a bow?
Like a fighter with 2 attacks per round could use the greatsword and then fire the bow?
I don't think so...I believe a Full Attack requires you to use the same weapon unless you are using 2 weapon fighting and I don't think a bow qualifies for TWF.
|
|
You are asking if you can split your attack actions between a great sword and a bow?
Like a fighter with 2 attacks per round could use the greatsword and then fire the bow?
I don't think so...I believe a Full Attack requires you to use the same weapon unless you are using 2 weapon fighting and I don't think a bow qualifies for TWF.
Let me try to clarify:
You have 4 arms (2 normal, 2 vestigial).
As per the rules of vestigial arms, you do not gain additional attacks, but they may wield weapons. The two vestigial arms will wield a bow, the normal arms a greatsword. With that in mind, here's a fellow with a BAB of +11 on a full attack:
11/6/1
His targets are as follows, a target in melee with him that is on its last legs, and a caster 20 feet away.
On his full attack, he makes a melee attack with his greatsword, killing the target. Considering he has two attack left in his full attack, and that he is still armed with a bow, he then uses his iterative attacks (the 2nd and 3rd attacks) to make shots at the caster with his bow. No extra attacks via two weapon fighting were taken, and no extra attacks were made due to extra limbs. It satisfies the rules of vestigial arms.
Does what I'm trying to convey make sense?
Under these circumstances could I use different types of weapons (ranged AND melee) in one full-attack action?
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
You are asking if you can split your attack actions between a great sword and a bow?
Like a fighter with 2 attacks per round could use the greatsword and then fire the bow?
I don't think so...I believe a Full Attack requires you to use the same weapon unless you are using 2 weapon fighting and I don't think a bow qualifies for TWF.
Let me try to clarify:
You have 4 arms (2 normal, 2 vestigial).
As per the rules of vestigial arms, you do not gain additional attacks, but they may wield weapons. The two vestigial arms will wield a bow, the normal arms a greatsword. With that in mind, here's a fellow with a BAB of +11 on a full attack:
11/6/1
His targets are as follows, a target in melee with him that is on its last legs, and a caster 20 feet away.
On his full attack, he makes a melee attack with his greatsword, killing the target. Considering he has two attack left in his full attack, and that he is still armed with a bow, he then uses his iterative attacks (the 2nd and 3rd attacks) to make shots at the caster with his bow. No extra attacks via two weapon fighting were taken, and no extra attacks were made due to extra limbs. It satisfies the rules of vestigial arms.
Does what I'm trying to convey make sense?
Under these circumstances could I use different types of weapons (ranged AND melee) in one full-attack action?
Sounds totally reasonable to me.
The intent is that you have an extra arm for holding stuff, not to turn you into a double-greatsword-wielding maniac.
|
|
The intent is that you have an extra arm for holding stuff, not to turn you into a double-greatsword-wielding maniac.
The problem Cheapy is that although it was MEANT to be used to hold things...it doesn't specifically say in the rules you can NOT use them to attack in the book. And I linked that earlier.
I don't see why not...you just have to specify which weapon you're using first and second.
To the original question line...I think if you dual wield two 2 handers its Str x 1.5 and Str x .5 per the rules of TF stating one is an off hand attack and then the damage rules for off hand attacks being Str x .5. They just didn't intend for an offhand attack to be a 2h weapon.
Ignoring the intent, especially when known, is cheese :D
But letting the eidolon have 6 or more arms with all manner of weapons used is a-ok.
Got it.
Anyway, dual wielding 2 greatswords is stupid. The added base damage isn't worth the extra -2 on all attacks. Perhaps if you were an eidolon/synthesist and could eventually get up to size huge + use enlarge person the base damage dice increase would be enough to justify it mechanically. Maybe.
I dunno. While I am of the camp that respects rules intent and what the developers say the intent was when they made the feat I might have to draw the line on this one. I mean, it is a logical conclusion that someone is going to want to use those hands for offense. If it weren't intended to allow for that then it should have been specified when the rule was created.
Dev, "Let let them grow extra arms. They can use them for holding things, doing stuff and all kinds of fun things!"
Player 1, "I'm going to use mine to hold a shield! Its not an attack so it should totally work and allow me to still weild my greatsword!"
Player 2, "I'm goin to use my extra hands to hold onto a greatsword in one set of hands and a longbow in my other set of hands. It isn't granting me extra attacks, just making it so I don't have to drop weapons and reposition which hands are being used, etc."
Dev, "...uh, wait... thats not what we intended."
Players, "But it works that way, right? I mean thats what the rules allow, isn't it?"
Dev, "Hang on. ... .... Not anymore. I just changed it."
See what I mean? I mean obviously you can't predict everything a player would try to use such an ability for but those two examples are the first ones I thought of. I don't think I'm alone on this either as these theories are bandied about frequently. I don't believe that our Devs are that short sited. They are far to wise for that. It just seems... I dunno. Fishy.
Ignoring the intent, especially when known, is cheese :D
When intent is less fun for my players, and runs counter to the way they set it up in the first place I'll ignore it every time.
I'll ignore the supposed 'intent' with the recent monk recon, and I'll ignore the intent on this and several other things.
It's too cool of a feature to waste on not doing anything -- especially when the reasons given aren't even mechanically (or systematically whichever you prefer) sound.
Thanx, BBT. Now who is going to clean up this pop that just sprayed out of my nose?
I guess I'm wondering what they intended the arms to be used for. ... that is effective, anyway.
|
|
Thanx, BBT. Now who is going to clean up this pop that just sprayed out of my nose?
I guess I'm wondering what they intended the arms to be used for. ... that is effective, anyway.
Sounds like they want an alchemist to hold extracts, mutagens, or be able to throw bombs without having to drop anything else you're holding. Wait... that sounds like ACTION ECONOMY.
And if I'm going to make a combat-oriented alchemist that drops bombs for sneak attack, you better damn well believe those extra arms are going to wield another weapon for.... ACTION ECONOMY.