|
BECAUSE IT"S A MONSTER IN THE BESTIARY... Again how do many monsters get their rules.
Where does the Terrasque get it's regen from? Where does the monsters I mentioned earlier get their abilities? it's not from a class they have...
Rynjin, if you do things because no rule says you can't then we all get to just make crap up and say "prove it, there's no rule that says I can't"
I can take regen 20 and the ability to not be killed that a terrasque has because there's no rule or feat that it has that lets it, so I can just do it...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
let me bold something, then.
That right there is a rule that allows you to attack with more than two hands. This feat doesn't grant you additional attacks, but it does reduce the penalties of the additional attacks you already have.Multiweapon Fighting (Combat)
This multi-armed creature is skilled at making attacks with multiple weapons.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, three or more hands.
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.
Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms.
Brilliant - thanks Fatyeri! I think this is indeed offers clarity in respect to the mechanics. Thanks for the great grammar eye :)
BECAUSE IT"S A MONSTER IN THE BESTIARY... Again how do many monsters get their rules.
Where does the Terrasque get it's regen from?
From the little bit in its stat block that says "Regeneration 40".
Whereas the Marilith has no special caveat that gives it that ability, it is just able to make multiple attacks because it has multiple arms.
Where does the monsters I mentioned earlier get their abilities? it's not from a class they have...
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/rules-for-monsters/universal-monste r-rules
Rynjin, if you do things because no rule says you can't then we all get to just make crap up and say "prove it, there's no rule that says I can't"
I guess everybody has to buy the "breathing" action because nothing says that just anybody can just decide to inhale and exhale.
I can take regen 20 and the ability to not be killed that a terrasque has because there's no rule or feat that it has that lets it, so I can just do it...
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/rules-for-monsters/universal-monster- rules
|
So, the Bestiary feat don't exist, though available to PCs?
What about the special abilities that are outlined in the Bestiary, but not the Core, and are available to PCs through spells and class features?
Do PCs not gain them, because as they originate in the Bestiary?
What about becoming a Bestiary creature, through spells like Reincarnate, do the PCs stop existing?
|
|
I'm saying no rule exists that gives them extra attacks due to multiple arms.
Again all the feat does is reduce the penalty like two weapon fighting does... except rather than one hand (which two weapon fighting specifies, it indicates ALL offhands) it still doesn't grant permission for an extra attack beyond what two-weapon fighting allows for.
The whole argument here is I have extra arms, I have multi weapon attacking I get as many attacks as I have limbs... which isn't supported in the rules at all.
|
|
Or it's calling it out because it doesn't want people like the OP making the leaps of logic they are making that the rules do not explicitly support. That they are infering meaning based off non-characters having special attack routines and assuming it can apply to them.
It came up alot during playtest...
|
|
I'm saying that the monsters don't have to follow the rules and in fact most don't. They are given abilities that have no correlation to the rules.
The point is, the ones arguing for this can't find a rule to support their opinion. They validate their view based off the lack of a rule... Which of course is ridiculous.
You're looking for monsters as your proof you can, well what ability do they have that grants them these attacks? is it an arm? is it a feat? Is it because of it's race, it's eye color?
You do not know, you're assuming and that's it. You're assuming it's based on a singular bestiary entry and without basing it on rules.... Which again is REQUIRED to do anything with your characters.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The feat only makes it clear you do not take a penalty to offhand attacks with all your hands. It makes no sense for a feat that is used instead of two-weapon fighting to do so much more than two-weapon fighting.
Without this feat if you have four arms and decide to dual wield two two handed weapons you'd take the full -10 penalty due to two weapon fighting normally only affect one off hand... Hence this feat.
There's still nothing in that feat that permits extra attacks.
You're inferring something erroneously from the "all of its hands" that's simply no present.
The two weapon feat in the book does not even grant an extra attack. It's the action of fighting with two weapons that does that (read the combat section)
|
|
Ah, now it is because of a single monster, and not multiple examples?
I should point you to the Four-Armed Mudra Skeleton, the Upasunda Asura, and the High Girallon.
|
|
Again, those are monsters and not characters. Can you quote a rule that ya know, characters can use and cite? If not, you're simply not legal and house ruling something.
In particular in relation to the OP, are you saying that you flat simply get an extra attack per limb? Guess all monks should be able to flurry 5 attacks at lvl 1 then right? Maybe more if we count elbows and knees....
Again, those are monsters and not characters. Can you quote a rule that ya know, characters can use and cite? If not, you're simply not legal and house ruling something.
And what do they all have in common? No special rule that allows them to attack with multiple weapons, and yet they can use all of their weapons. That's your citation right there.
In particular in relation to the OP, are you saying that you flat simply get an extra attack per limb? Guess all monks should be able to flurry 5 attacks at lvl 1 then right? Maybe more if we count elbows and knees....
Ohai restrictive versus permissive ruleset, how are you today?
At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes.
Here's a point for you, they all have natural attacks equal to the number of manufactured weapon attacks.
How did they get all those natural attacks? Maybe there's a "hidden" rule that only lets you wield as many weapons as you have natural attacks.
Now you're just stretching.
|
|
Am I stretching? you're inferring that you get extra attacks due to limbs, you have no rules to support your argument you merely point that some creatures with multiple-limbs have multiple attacks.
Yet you dismiss the conjecture that you must have an equal number of natural attacks to get that many manufactured, and that they are in leiu of your natural attacks?
Who's stretching again?
As far as this unwritten rule is concerned it appears to be a co-requisite if we're to read into bestiary rules for inferred rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Every creature with multiple limbs get multiple attacks, so far as I know. Do you have any examples of ones that don't?
Yes, I dismiss that conjecture because it's ridiculous. Beside the fact that you must sacrifice and/or downgrade your natural attacks to secondary attacks when wielding a weapon, as stated here:
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 available natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack’s original type.
I subscribe to the philosophy that Occam's Razor is usually in effect. Which is the simpler and more logical explanation? The one that says "creatures with multiple arms/limbs can attack with all the weapons held in those arms/limbs, just as creatures with only a pair of arms/limbs can attack with weapons held in both" or the one that says "There is some hidden, unspoken rule that states you can only have as many weapon attacks as you have natural attacks, even though there is absolutely no basis for this assumption"?
|
|
HOW DOES IT DO IT IF THE RULES DON'T EXIST?
That's exactly my f$~@ing point. It can do it, there is no special rule that ALLOWS it to do it, which means it is possible without any special ability. Simple as that.
You've already made it clear you don't need no stinking rule to do what you want, you only need rules that says you can't apparently... which is ridiculous.
This is the last I'll say it, because it's running in circles, and you and supporters of arms = attacks refuse to provide any actual rule that permits it.
NPCs are not PCs, they don't have to follow PC rules and often do not. You cannot say your PC has an ability just because a NPC does. It's just as easy to infer that arms + natural attacks = number of manufactured attacks possible as it is arms = manufactured attacks. I'll agree one is simpler, the problem isn't which is more believable, is that they both have exactly the same "proof" that they are valid as each other... which is to say nothing but conjecture.
Perhaps this will be good enough, I stumbled upon it while making a Race a minute ago. It's from the Race Builder on the PRD.
Members of this race possess three arms. A member of this race can wield multiple weapons, but only one hand is its primary hand, and all others are off hands. It can also use its hands for other purposes that require free hands. Special: This trait can be taken up to twice. When it is taken a second time, the race gains a fourth arm.
EDIT: I thought about it a bit more and this is how I think it works.
Player characters do not usually have natural attacks (unarmed strikes do not count as natural weapons).
Every character can use all their attacks when they take the Full Round Attack action. Therefore we need to count up all the attacks a character can make.
A normal character has 2 attacks, primary and offhand(optional), +1 attack for every 5 BAB above 1.
If you have natural attacks then you can make all them in addition to all your other attacks (provided you have not used that limb to make some other attack. For example, a clawed hand wielding a sword can either be a sword or claw attack).
So far I think this is definitely true. It is simply the rules as written.
------------------
My following rulings I'm less sure of:
The race with 4 arms has zero natural attacks and thus has no reason to have more attacks than anyone else.
Finally you can forfeit any natural attack to instead attack with a weapon wielded in that limb.
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.
This explains why the multi-armed skeletons get more attacks - not because the arms grant extra attacks, but because they already have 4 attacks even without weapons.
Hey, just to screw with everyone here and to ask a legitimate question, im gonna pose an interesting idea.
If your race was Kasatha and your built a sniper character with bows, does that mean if you shoot both bows at the same time that it counts as one attack with two attack rolls and still be able to stealth afterwards?
This logic follows manyshot, able to fire two arrows at once.
|
|
My assumption is that the Core assumes that all PCs are two-armed, two-legged humanoids.
The rule are written as such.
When players are using monstrous races, then things get tricky.
Saying "things in Bestiary don't count, because those are monsters" is not valid, as you are playing monsters.
Now, though RAW, some of the rules regarding monsters are kind of crazy in a PC's hands.
Simply saying the rule don't exist doesn't help.
So, just like custom magic items, monstrous PCs will need to be adjusted by the DM, for a balanced approach.
Now just to iterate, the rules are clear how it works, but that doesn't mean they should be used as is, regarding monstrous PCs.
This is clear, no need for FAQ, just some DM adjusting.
|
|
The point is you're acting as if you're citing a rule. You're inferring a rule to exist that's not clear it does.
I have pointed out that they all have natural attacks = to their limbs... so it seems it's a pre-req to have a natural attack, and that you only do these in place of natural attacks, but for some reason that was shot down as absurd and "reading too much into it" but that's exactly how this "rule" was created...
The point is, there is no rule that gives this ability, there are other things these critters have in common (ie natural attack) that in regards to the OP and the intent of much of this discussion indicates that a PC can never get additional attacks by virtue of having extra limbs.
Isel-zha, I've replied several times to your point and others, and I've acknowledged it even. I've also dismissed it on not being based off of any rules, and that MORE can be inferred than just where you and others are drawing the line. When you have to start repeating yourself, the conversation is done. No new points are being brought to the conversation, and no rules are even being attempted at being quoted by you or others.
The only arguments against what I've been pointing out revolves around conjecture, and reading between lines.... lines that don't even exist.
I agree with latzkev here.
We want to know how many attacks a PC can make. A normal character gets their BAB-based iterative attacks, one offhand (up to 3 with the TWF feat tree), and all natural attacks.
The only time doing anything else than this is ever mentioned is inthe universal monster rules:
"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."
This passage, (admittedly ambiguously), seems to allow forfeiting natural attacks for manufactured weapon attacks.
Therefore, there is no reason a four armed humanoid with zero natural attacks (the case we are discussing) should get more attacks.
Isil, the MWF feat makes absolutely no mention of the number of attacks anyone can make, only the attack modifiers.
The wording of the passage I quoted is vague, so if you were to say it doesn't mean what I claim it to mean then I'd be sympathetic, and perhaps even concede.
I also think that giving a creature an attack for each arm is reasonable, but not actually stated anywhere in the rules.
Ideally, there should be a way to explain the extra attacks that the multi-armed monsters mentioned above possess. Assuming they can attack for each arm is reasonable, but is a stretch as no such rule is stated. The passage I quoted seems like an explanation that is significantly less of a stretch.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still don't understand how "I have 4 natural attacks, therefore I get 4 manufactured weapon attacks" is less of a stretch than "I have 4 arms, therefore I can use 4 weapons".
|
|
The feat only makes it clear you do not take a penalty to offhand attacks with all your hands. It makes no sense for a feat that is used instead of two-weapon fighting to do so much more than two-weapon fighting.
Without this feat if you have four arms and decide to dual wield two two handed weapons you'd take the full -10 penalty due to two weapon fighting normally only affect one off hand... Hence this feat.
There's still nothing in that feat that permits extra attacks.
You're inferring something erroneously from the "all of its hands" that's simply no present.The two weapon feat in the book does not even grant an extra attack. It's the action of fighting with two weapons that does that (read the combat section)
Yes this point hasn't been made or addressed. there's of course your ability to "infer" all these extra attacks, but there are other plausible rationals too behind this feat than "zomg I get an attack for every limb!"
|
|
No it is only reading into things, because there's no actual text to read that says you may do this thing. If it weren't the case this discussion wouldn't have lasted this long, and you would of simply said "page 666, book of op"
As it stands, you merely point to your conjecture and ignore people telling you there is no rule to support what you're saying, and that your reading into the lines can easily lead to a different conclusion... one that apparently doesn't agree with the folks posting here, because then your character would require more than just extra arms...