|
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I was looking at the latest paizo blog detailing a preview of a custom race, and one of its traits stuck out like a sore thumb:
Multi-Armed: Kasatha possess four arms. While all of the arms can wield weapons, all but one are considered off-hand weapons. Kasatha take the normal penalties for two-weapon fighting when using more than one weapon.
This racial trait made me ask a few questions:
1. Assuming no additional attacks are granted via a high BAB, haste, Improved/Greater TWF, a ki point expended, etc., can a Multi-Armed character make 1 Main-hand attack and 3 off-hand attacks in a full attack?
2. How does the fact that 'Kasatha take the normal penalties for two-weapon fighting when using more than one weapon' interact and account for Multi-weapon fighting? Is it implying you can only make one off-hand attack, like a character with 2 arms?
Considering how close we are to the release of the book, this seems as good a place as any to post this thread. Thanks for any clarification.
As the book isn't out yet, obviously anything mentioned by someone who isn't a Dev would be speculation. But, I like to speculate, so here goes.
My guess would be that each limb grants an attack. If each limb is wielding manufactured weapons, then you would take the penalties associated with two-weapon fighting. Without the feats, your main-hand would take the -6 and the off-hands (all three of them) would suffer the -10s. If the off-hand weapons were all light, the penalties would be -4/-8/-8/-8.
Taking the TWF feat would reduce each of those numbers to -4/-4/-4/-4 or -2/-2/-2/-2 if all the off-hand weapons are light. Effectively, multiweapon fighting from the bestiary and two-weapon fighting from the core book would be identical for these purposes.
I would assume that taking ITWF and GTWF would grant just one additional attack each, and not one for each limb. The feat granting 3 additional attacks would probably be a bit unbalanced. The additional attacks could come from any of the 3 off-hand weapons, more than likely, but not an additional attack for each of them.
The biggest problem I am seeing is a 4-armed creature dual wielding two handed weapons. Even dual wielding two-handed ranged weapons like longbows. The core book presents suggests (by omission) that the penalties for dual-wielding greatswords is the same as dual-wielding longswords, however this seems slightly silly to me.
I love multi-armed creatures, but it does open a can of worms.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I'm fairly confident that the intent is that the extra arms have no (direct) effect on your attack routine, they just open up options for how you can implement your existing attack routines.
For instance, you could TWF with two-handed weapons, you could split your iteratives between a longbow and a greatsword, you could TWF with shortswords as normal while also having a shield and a free hand, etc. But your number of attacks or how the attack mechanics work is unchanged.
At least, that's how I currently see it.
The marilith from the Bestiary shows her receiving four iterative attacks from her BAB of 16(/11/6/1) and then FIVE additional longswords in addition to natural attacks.
I'm pretty sure that with four arms, they get any iterative attacks plus off-hand attacks per multiweapon fighting.
Hmm... I'd personally say that two handing requires that one hand be your primary hand. So you couldn't dual weild two handers: only two hand one weapon and still have two more for off handed weapons.
I mean really, think about the physics of how 4 hands would work. You'd have two left hands and two right hands. Dual weilding requires one of each to be pulled off traditionally (I see dual weilding with two left arms as being problematic.)
So how else would you arrange your arms. Both weapons would be in front and would get in the way of eachother if each weapon got one left hand and one right hand.
Now, being able to TWF and two hand your primary weapon could still be an interesting side effect... not sure how balancing works for that.
Hmm... I'd personally say that two handing requires that one hand be your primary hand. So you couldn't dual weild two handers: only two hand one weapon and still have two more for off handed weapons.
I mean really, think about the physics of how 4 hands would work. You'd have two left hands and two right hands. Dual weilding requires one of each to be pulled off traditionally (I see dual weilding with two left arms as being problematic.)
Unless you were using the strength of using two hands to wield the two-hander as if it was a one-hander. Then your two left hands would be acting as a single left hand wielding a single greatsword as if it was a longsword (the excess weight sated by the added extra limb), and your two right hands would be doing the same to the second.
|
|
I mean really, think about the physics of how 4 hands would work. You'd have two left hands and two right hands. Dual weilding requires one of each to be pulled off traditionally (I see dual weilding with two left arms as being problematic.)
So how else would you arrange your arms. Both weapons would be in front and would get in the way of eachother if each weapon got one left hand and one right hand.
crossbows, spears and such could work. Or you could grasp a spear with four arms and get a crazy CMD bonus against disarm attacks.
Hmm... I'd personally say that two handing requires that one hand be your primary hand. So you couldn't dual weild two handers: only two hand one weapon and still have two more for off handed weapons.
I mean really, think about the physics of how 4 hands would work. You'd have two left hands and two right hands. Dual weilding requires one of each to be pulled off traditionally (I see dual weilding with two left arms as being problematic.)
So how else would you arrange your arms. Both weapons would be in front and would get in the way of eachother if each weapon got one left hand and one right hand.
Now, being able to TWF and two hand your primary weapon could still be an interesting side effect... not sure how balancing works for that.
Actually, I can see using two right arms to hold a greataxe or greatsword. You're providing two anchor points on the haft/hilt, providing two sources of leverage and strength, and you don't have to cross your center. In effect I feel like it would feel a lot like using a one-handed weapon for someone with four arms.
Now using two longbows makes no sense to me. The way an archer has to draw a bow to aim properly doesn't lend itself to having TWO of them. Would be cool to see two hands drawing from the same quiver though.
|
|
I love multi-armed creatures, but it does open a can of worms.
It shouldn't have to.
Paizo gave everyone a case of madness with Vestigial Arms, and it seems they haven't learned their lesson. A simple mention of Multiweapon Fighting and Multiattack in this entry could clear up a lot of things.
On the other side of the argument, they could be explicit with the details and say that these extra limbs don't grant extra attacks. They can go even further and say that this doesn't permit the use of two-handed weapons in TWF.
It seems a simple thing to do, considering the commotion caused in the past over such things.
We really should get this made an FAQ candidate.
I love multi-armed creatures, but it does open a can of worms.It shouldn't have to.
Paizo gave everyone a case of madness with Vestigial Arms, and it seems they haven't learned their lesson. A simple mention of Multiweapon Fighting and Multiattack in this entry could clear up a lot of things.
On the other side of the argument, they could be explicit with the details and say that these extra limbs don't grant extra attacks. They can go even further and say that this doesn't permit the use of two-handed weapons in TWF.
It seems a simple thing to do, considering the commotion caused in the past over such things.
There might be further text in the actual book that wasn't contained in the preview image. I am going to hold off judgment on multiple arms until I receive my copy, at least.
Regarding using two bows: It's not unreasonable to either hold the bow horizontally instead of vertically (in fact, this was not an uncommon practice), easily allowing for holding and drawing two bows with one essentially tiered above the other. Aiming from this might be trickier, but that's what TWF penalties are there to account for. Also, holding a bow normally (vertically) pulls much of the body to one side. You are not required to turn sideways to fire and can instead just rotate your shoulders. A four armed creature would have two sets of shoulders, essentially, and could conceivably rotate it's body one direction from the upper shoulders and the other from the lower shoulders, allowing one bow to be wielding on each side of the body. Aiming still becomes problematic, but that's what TWF penalties are for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm fairly confident that the intent is that the extra arms have no (direct) effect on your attack routine, they just open up options for how you can implement your existing attack routines.
For instance, you could TWF with two-handed weapons, you could split your iteratives between a longbow and a greatsword, you could TWF with shortswords as normal while also having a shield and a free hand, etc. But your number of attacks or how the attack mechanics work is unchanged.
At least, that's how I currently see it.
The point value of adding two extra arms is almost the equivalent adding half a new race... I think this logic alone implies they aren't there to hold torches and scratch your ass.
I think the original interpretations are correct, all the same penalties but with 4 arms and one is primary.
can a Multi-Armed character make 1 Main-hand attack and 3 off-hand attacks in a full attack?
There is a FAQ post about this question here, if anyone wishes to contribute.
|
|
The point value of adding two extra arms is almost the equivalent adding half a new race... I think this logic alone implies they aren't there to hold torches and scratch your ass.
I think the original interpretations are correct, all the same penalties but with 4 arms and one is primary.
If the Playtest is any indication, extra arms are the equivalent of two bonus feats (4 RP each), Racial Point-wise. Judge that how you will.
There's also the type of trait it is to consider. If it's an advanced trait, I'd imagine that it would lead towards more functionality than mere action economy (never having to drop or switch out weapons/ always threatening).
Mariliths have SIX arms. Four should be easy.
|
|
Mariliths have SIX arms. Four should be easy.
They're also designed as npc monsters, and not subject to the incredible amount of scrutiny that a combat player character is for the sake of full-attack options.
Then again, I don't see how any of this can be argued when you can make a paladin 2/synthesist 18, a beast-of-all-trades whose power armor just can't seem to be removed (except for anti-magic).
They're also designed as npc monsters, and not subject to the incredible amount of scrutiny that a combat player character is for the sake of full-attack options.
I don't really like what this statement implies.
Why should a PC garner any more attention than an NPC that said PC may have to fight against at some point? I'm pro-Rule Zero, but I don't think that means that NPCs shouldn't be given the same attention to balance as PCs, or that PCs by virtue of being the sole focus of an individual (as opposed to the role of DM who plays a vast number of roles) should be any less effective given the same boons.
Maybe you weren't giving your own opinion so much as making an observation; at any rate, I don't feel like NPCs should follow any different rules per RAW. A DM should have every right to alter the way the game works at his table, but as an objective set of rules - the guidelines by which DMs make their judgment calls - NPCs should be built on the same standard as PCs.
I thought I had a handle on multiweapon fighting until I read this topic. Now I'm confused...
Now using two longbows makes no sense to me. The way an archer has to draw a bow to aim properly doesn't lend itself to having TWO of them. Would be cool to see two hands drawing from the same quiver though.
There was the Arrow Demon in 3.5. He had 4 arms and used two long bows. There was even a picture of him to help with the mental picture of how it worked. I personally didnt see it either untill I looked at the picture... but it looks easy if your aiming at the same target.
|
|
I don't really like what this statement implies.Why should a PC garner any more attention than an NPC that said PC may have to fight against at some point? I'm pro-Rule Zero, but I don't think that means that NPCs shouldn't be given the same attention to balance as PCs, or that PCs by virtue of being the sole focus of an individual (as opposed to the role of DM who plays a vast number of roles) should be any less effective given the same boons.
Maybe you weren't giving your own opinion so much as making an observation; at any rate, I don't feel like NPCs should follow any different rules per RAW. A DM should have every right to alter the way the game works at his table, but as an objective set of rules - the guidelines by which DMs make their judgment calls - NPCs should be built on the same standard as PCs.
While I would have to agree with such a sentiment in some aspects, some creatures and monsters are created in ways as to challenge an entire party. To take the straight comparison of a single monster and its CR to a single character of comparable HD/level, especially in the case of a Marilith, isn't going to work.
Now using two longbows makes no sense to me. The way an archer has to draw a bow to aim properly doesn't lend itself to having TWO of them. Would be cool to see two hands drawing from the same quiver though.There was the Arrow Demon in 3.5. He had 4 arms and used two long bows. There was even a picture of him to help with the mental picture of how it worked. I personally didnt see it either untill I looked at the picture... but it looks easy if your aiming at the same target.
Here is said picture. I remember bringing it up recently on another topic about a were-tarantula.
I thought I had a handle on multiweapon fighting until I read this topic. Now I'm confused...
Honestly I am too. Multiweapon, Two Weapon, Natural Attacks.... it all kind of blends together. I dont know why they had to make it so dificult.
Expecially when it comes to longbows. The Arrow demon I mentioned was easy. It had a racial trait that said he shot 2 arrows instead of one with his attacks because he shot two arrows. So for instance.
Rapid Shot/First Shot/Second Shot or 11/11/6 turned into 11/11/11/11/6/6
Im not sure how it works in Pathfinder. Lets say you have a 6 armed character with +20 BAB, +5 Dex mod, and three +1 bows,Rapid Shot, Two Weapon Fighting, Imp Two Weapon, and Greater Two weapon fighting(Or the equivalent Multi chain).
-2 for Rapid shot and -4 for wielding multiple weapons (that aren't light). +20 BAB, +5 Dex, and +1 from weapon. So would you get the following attacks?
First pair: +20/20/15/10/5
Second pair: +20/15/10
Third pair: +20/15/10
I would assume the Rapid shot would only work on your first bow shot. Then you add an extra attack for each additional pair of hands for TW, IMP TW, and GTW. I probably have it all wrong. How does it work with my above example?
Well, from what I can read, Multiweapon Fighting is meant to replace Two Weapon Fighting for creatures with three or more arms. It says so in the feat. I'm down with that.
You can fight with both of your hands whether you have the Two Weapon Fighting Feat or not. Without the feat, you are at -6 with your main hand and -10 with your off hands. I can dig that.
Iterative attacks can be made with the same weapon. When combined with two weapon fighting, you firstly get your base attack at +6 BAB and incur the proper minuses for TWF with main hand. Secondly comes your off hand via TWF at +6 BAB and the proper minuses for TWF with off hand. Lastly comes the +1 BAB iterative attack.
With that all know, I'd say multiweapon fighting pretty much works like Umbral Reaver mentioned. You have your +6 BAB attack, then the MWF attacks, then the iterative attacks.
As a question, though, do you get the TWF negatives on your BAB iterative attack as well as your two other attacks when TWF?
|
|
Honestly I am too. Multiweapon, Two Weapon, Natural Attacks.... it all kind of blends together. I dont know why they had to make it so dificult.
Expecially when it comes to longbows. The Arrow demon I mentioned was easy. It had a racial trait that said he shot 2 arrows instead of one with his attacks because he shot two arrows. So for instance.
Rapid Shot/First Shot/Second Shot or 11/11/6 turned into 11/11/11/11/6/6
Im not sure how it works in Pathfinder. Lets say you have a 6 armed character with +20 BAB, +5 Dex mod, and three +1 bows,Rapid Shot, Two Weapon Fighting, Imp Two Weapon, and Greater Two weapon fighting(Or the equivalent Multi chain).
-2 for Rapid shot and -4 for wielding multiple weapons (that aren't light). +20 BAB, +5 Dex, and +1 from weapon. So would you get the following attacks?
First pair: +20/20/15/10/5
Second pair: +20/15/10
Third pair: +20/15/10I would assume the Rapid shot would only work on your first bow shot. Then you add an extra attack for each additional pair of hands for TW, IMP TW, and GTW. I probably have it all wrong. How does it work with my above example?
With Pathfinder rulings, this is how it would pan out:
First Bow/pair: +20/20/15/10/5
Second Bow/pair: +20/15/10
Third Bow/pair: +20
The third bow/pair only grants an additional attack, as ITWF and GTWF only grant additional attacks to ONE off-hand weapon. The intention of TWF, ITWF, and GTWF were for the purposes of wielding two weapons at the same time. Any additional weapon attacks granted by an extra limb fall into the realm of Multi-weapon fighting, which merely reduces the penalty of all iterative attacks and additional attacks granted by weapons held in 3 or more hands made in conjunction during a full attack.
The center of the problem doesn't lie with these mechanics, though.
It's with the lack of clarity in things like Vestigial Arms (Ex) and the racial trait Multi-armed. The wording of each makes it clear that these arms work differently than a normal pair, but how exactly they are different remains unclear (especially in regards to Multi-weapon fighting). THIS is what leads to the confusion.
I do not mean to bump this thread, but has Paizo or anyone with some authority made a decision as to the mechanics in this regard? I have a character who is creating a Flowing Monk Kasatha, so I am trying to figure out the mechanics of multiweapon fighting works and whether that would mean she would have 1 mainhand attack and 3 offhand ones with Unarmed Strike?