Multi-armed


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 211 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

If a monk is of an ARG race with 4 arms (say shes 1st level) and has the multiweapon feat (assuming she needs it) does she get any benefit?

If she gets extra attacks are they at the flurry attack bonus of +1 or her bases BAB of 0, since they aren't necessarily part of her flurry...

Seems like the two extra arms should do something...
Thanks


Which race is it?

But the Dev's have made it clear that the Vestigial Arm Alchemist ability does NOT gain extra attacks, even with multiattack/weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

DrDeth, do you have a link to this? I have a PC introducing a new Kasatha Flowing Monk and I am trying to get the combat particulars down :?

Sczarni

two extra arms = nothing extra for a monk flurry...

are part of a normal full attack, you can tack on whatever the arms add, but flurry is unique. It counts as TWF but can't be combined with natural attacks, so unless the arms add a different type of extra attacks, you're nothing but goro as a monk, no extra attacks. (although you can use those two arms to maintain a grapple while the other two wail on someone, maybe even your grappled one =P


Thanks lantzkev,

So - Flurry is flurry, regardless of arms. But, if the Monk has multiweapon fighting, does that mean he would have 1 main hand attack and 3 offhand ones if he is using Unarmed Strike?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Yes, Flurry is Flurry, regardless of arms.

No arms, or 12 arms, they get the same amount of attacks from Flurry.

An unarmed strike is also the same. Extra limbs do not provide extra unarmed strikes.

Best to use a Monk weapon with those extra arms.

Sczarni

no for the same reason you don't say a monk has three off hands normally, or hell 4...

Because every part of their body is a weapon for them, feet, head, knees, elbows etc...


So, if a Monk were intending to solely use Unarmed Strike, it would seem not to make sense to invest in Multiweapon Fighting or am I missing something?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

You are correct.

You have one unarmed strike, regardless of limbs.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

You are correct.

You have one unarmed strike, regardless of limbs.

I'd say two, because TWF and UAS definitely work together.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Isil-zha wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

You are correct.

You have one unarmed strike, regardless of limbs.

I'd say two, because TWF and UAS definitely work together.

In the sense that you can combine a dagger and an unarmed strike, then yes.

Otherwise, no.


Okay - I think I am getting this, so I apologise for possible seeming thick and please know how GRATEFUL I am for your time!

Okay. Flowing Monk with four arms.

Flurry damage: is this considered unarmed strike?

Multiple weapon feat: means a weapon actually has to be equipped.

Both FoB & MWF are full action rounds that must be chosen. If FoB is used, attacks are considered Unarmed Strike? If MWF, then whatever weapons are used: i.e., Main Hand (unarmed strike) & then 3 off hands weapon dependent. Is that right?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

With Flurry, none of your attacks are considered off-hand.

With Multiweapon Fighting, you have one primary hand, and all others are off-hand.

Both are Full-attack actions, which are Full-round actions.

Honestly, a multiarmed PC is better with something like the Brawler Fighter.


Okay - what I am trying to understand is the implications of the character build for the PC. I understand the Full Action aspect. I do not think Brawler Fighter is accessible to the Flowing Monk.

The reason I think the Unarmed Strike - for the build - is important is owing to the damage the Flowing Monk does in this regard: 1d8+3 (Lvl 4). I had assumed, therefore, that each limb could be considered an Unarmed Strike (Main hand + 3 off hand) if the PC wants to use MWF. But I am hearing that is not possible. Is this correct? If so, then the character must equip a one-handed weapon for each hand.

To be honest, I had thought focusing on fighting styles made sense, but it is obviously up to the PC, so I just need to wrap my head around the mechanics of his choice.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

If you simply think of the unarmed strike as a single weapon, then it is easier to work out in your head.


I'm actually confused. I had always thought you could Two Weapon Fight with unarmed strikes? That's how I got my unarmed fighter to work.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Well, that's a nightmare to have every part of the body capable of making an unarmed strike, a separate weapon.

Throw in multiweapon fighting, and madness ensues down that path.


Hmmmm ... so how do I differentiate a monk with 4 Sai than one with four fists? This is the part where it starts getting most confusing for me,

I certainly get the Flurry aspect - but the MWF w/o a fist starts to seem ... unbalanced? The advantage of FoB is the focused advantage as the character build progresses. MWF has less advantage - aka Monk build - but still makes sense RE: multi-armed character. How - therefore - do we draw the line of 'fist' vs. 'weapon' in this case? Does the question make sense?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Non-native speaker?


4 Sai are four distinct weapons. They can each have different levels of Masterwork, weapon bonuses, and other such differences.

There are no such differences with an Unarmed Strike. You don't have to buy Weapon Focus for Hands, Feet, Elbows, and Knees separately, they all work as the same weapon, the only difference being flavor and the fact that a Monk can fight even if his feet are rooted to the ground somehow and his hands are full.

It's not a line between "fist" and "weapon" it's a line between "Unarmed Strike" (Which is a weapon that includes hand, feet, knee, and elbow components) and "other weapons".

Sczarni

You still can only make so many attacks. Even if you had 16 arms, you're still limited to BAB and extra attacks from TWF...

Lets look at the feat you're puzzling over

Quote:

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.

If you notice, it says it replaces two-weapon fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms...

It still doesn't give permission for anything beyond what Two weapon fighting does and provides the rest of your arms as being secondary with a penalty of -4 rather than -10...

Quote:

Two-Weapon Fighting (Combat)

You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the secondary weapon.
Prerequisite: Dex 15.
Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. See Two-Weapon Fighting in Combat.
Normal: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way you suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand. If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light.

The point of this feat is that rather than a single hand getting this reduced penalty, they all do.

It does not give you any more attacks available to yourself than two-weapon fighting does (which is is acting as)

Lets say you had 4 arms. Without this feat you could wield two two handed weapons.... but one would be at a -6 and the other at a -10 since a "secondary" hand would be holding the first attack (along with the primary hand) and the other two would not get the "secondary" hand bonus...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Counterpoint. Marilith. 4 iterative attacks with primary weapon, 5 attacks with the offhand weapons.

As this is a home game,I don't see any reason that you cannot allow a 4 armed race to use unarmed strike + multiattack to make the 4 attacks.

The girallon has 4 arms and gets to make 4 claw attacks.

I think for the purpose of helping you, people are going hyper-strict RAW on you in replies.


Thanks Rynjin,

So ... I think I see the logic in your reply, which honestly is too dense for text.

So ... if there is a 4 armed PC, the FoB is not weapon dependent, whereas MWF is and that is an attack choice for a Full action round. Does this make sense?

RE: 'non-native speaker.' I am not sure how to respond. Rather than assume the intent of the comment, can you say more pls bbt?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Thing is, if walking down the path of Multiweapon Fighting, and every limb capable of making an unarmed strike counting as a different weapon, you get problems.

See example:

Kasatha Monk, Full attack(not flurry), Multiweapon Figthing, attacks with fist, fist, fist, fist, foot, foot, headbutt, Armor spikes.

That's 8 attacks at first level, but wait, a Monk can also attack with elbows and knees, so that's 14 attacks.

Now you see why the unarmed strike is one weapon?

Sczarni

Rathedar counter point, it's a monster not a character. The authors of each monster can create their own attack routines if they truely wish.


Yep - completely get that bbt :) What I am now trying to figure out then, is the MWF choice. The body for FoB includes ALL of the Monk. So a simple fist is obviously not a substitute for a weapon, i.e. sai. So - if said character - has WMF s/he could have four attacks. Main hand (unarmed strike) + each off-hand with a Sai with recognised limitations. Correct?


Yes, I believe you should be able to do that. One US as your main hand, and then three Sai as your off-hand.

Sczarni

you're both ignoring that it doesn't give you extra attacks, beyond the one from two-weapon fighting...


I thought you got an attack with each of your off-hands? Otherwise what's the point?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
lantzkev wrote:
you're both ignoring that it doesn't give you extra attacks, beyond the one from two-weapon fighting...

Two-weapon fighting is not Multiweapon Fighting.

Sczarni

let me bold the relevant points then again.

Quote:

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.

so it replaces the following

Quote:

Two-Weapon Fighting (Combat)

You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the secondary weapon.
Prerequisite: Dex 15.
Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. See Two-Weapon Fighting in Combat.
Normal: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way you suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand. If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light.

There is nothing in the rules that let you attack with more than one offhand.

Quote:

Improved Two-Weapon Fighting (Combat)

You are skilled at fighting with two weapons.
Prerequisites: Dex 17, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with it, albeit at a –5 penalty.
Normal: Without this feat, you can only get a single extra attack with an off-hand weapon.

gives you an extra with an offhand, so you can select that offhand from any offhand you're wielding without extra penalties due to having multi-weapon fighting.

When you read in combat, and anywhere else you look for player rules, there's nothing about wielding more than one extra weapon. The closest thing you have is the extra arm for the alchemist and it specifically says no extra attacks.

I do agree that it's not unreasonable to assume that you can, but the rules do not give you the permission to do that, and you can't do things in this game without permission.

Lets look at the advanced player guide race creation rules.

Quote:

Monstrous Traits

Multi-Armed (4 RP): Prerequisites: None; Benefit: 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.

There is certainly the mention that they are offhands, but there's still no permission given to make more attacks than two-weapon fighting.

I think the intent might have been to allow it, but at the same time design of player characters seems very heavily revolving around a certain number of attacks possible at certain stages... and I don't think they'd ever wanted PCs to be able to whip out more than 3 attacks at lvl 1, and even then I think the goal was more 2 except for special cases.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Explain Marilith.

Sczarni

I already have.

It's a monster with it's own unique stat block.

Okay, lets take a different tact... Where in the book do you see where it says you can get as many extra attacks as you have wielded weapons? Where does it say you can three-weapon, four-weapon fighting? All I've ever found is two-weapon fighting.


lantzkev wrote:
Where does it say you can three-weapon, four-weapon fighting? All I've ever found is two-weapon fighting.

Definition of MULTI-

1
a : many : multiple : much <multivalent>
b : more than two

Sczarni

And you can fight with multiple-weapons, you just don't get extra attacks from it.

So say you take multi-weapon fighting and you've got four arms, then you take improved two weapon fighting.

You could in theory now (and without extra penalties)

let's say your BAB is 12.

You can now do two attacks with your primary, then you can do another attack with your offhand and a fourth with that same off hand or a different offhand with same penalty the first off hand had. So you could perhaps save that last hard to hit attack for your pistol you're using with your +1 frost burst rapier and your +2 glaive that you wield in your two hands as primary (and you're using sword and pistol feat)

This is the benefit of the feat.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

What you are explaining is two-weapon fighting, not multiweapon fighting.

As far as you are concerned, this feat does nothing, serves no purpose, and multiweapon fighting simply does not exist.

You did not explain how the Marilith, or any other multi-armed monster, is getting their extra attacks, as written in their statblock.

No "extra attack" powers, just extra limbs, wielding extra weapons.

Sczarni

Lol I see, so you tell me to prove something, I point out that critters in the bestiary can be completely made up without guidelines at points.

I ask you to prove something and you just say "prove that point I just asked you to prove..."

How does a Baykok get negative energy added to all it's ranged shots?
How does a hollow serpent get two bites? Why doesn't it get more? it's got 20hd....

So I'll try and answer your question about the marilith.

Quote:
Average Die Results to determine the number of damage dice, combined with damage bonuses, that the creature needs to reach the average damage for its CR. The creature might need additional or more damaging attacks to approach the average. Remember that creatures that primarily deal damage with other abilities, such as spells, do not need to meet the average damage for their attacks.

A marilith is CR 17, so she should on a high deal around 120 damage.

Quote:
Melee +1 longsword +24/+19/+14/+9 (2d6+8/17–20), 5 +1 longswords +24 (2d6+4/17–20), tail slap +19 (2d6+3 plus grab) or 6 slams +22 (1d8+7), tail slap +19 (2d6+3 plus grab)

according to the table here We can see that the low end of the damage per hit should be 20 for a cr 17, and we have that for the primary attacks, but not the secondary attacks. If we average out her potential damage, 2d6+8x5 we are at 70 damage from primary and with her secondaries we see that the average damage is 50, so they overshot the average damage with this critter by a bit (average should be around 90 and this is 120 which would be fine if it were a cr 20) of course we don't know if the average is meant to calculate straight up average damage or if it's meant to factor in crits and misses...

At any rate, the answer to your question still comes down to, who knows, the writer of that stat block decided to do it that way...

So again, what rules in the books tell you as a character you may take additional offhand attacks for every offhand you have?


lantzkev wrote:

How does a Baykok get negative energy added to all it's ranged shots?

PRD - Baykok wrote:
Infused Arrows (Su) A baykok creates arrows of bone as it fires its bow—it need not carry arrows as ammunition. These bone arrows do normal damage for arrows fired from the bow, but gain a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. In addition, each arrow deals an additional 1d6 points of negative energy on a hit. Further, the first creature struck in a round by a baykok's arrow must make a DC 19 Fortitude save to avoid being paralyzed for 1d3 rounds. A baykok can fire normal arrows from its bow if it wishes—such arrows, however, do not gain the special negative energy damage or paralysis effects. The DC is Charisma-based.

That's how

lantzkev wrote:

How does a hollow serpent get two bites? Why doesn't it get more? it's got 20hd....

PRD - Hollow Serpent wrote:

Swift Strike (Ex) When a hollow serpent takes a full-attack action, it can make two bite attacks instead of just one.

That's how

Every special ability is noted in the creatures stat-block so we don't have to guess what the writer thought but can retrace all the steps of the creatures creation.

And the multi-weapon mastery of the Marilith does not grant extra attacks but just negates all penalties that usually come with it (see the Xill for a 4-armed example)

Your damage analysis of the Marilith is off... I think you ended up in the wrong columns with 70 avg. damage it's actually at the low end.

Every creature gets an off-hand attack for weapons held in arms after the first at the usual penalties that come with fighting with multiple weapons. MWF reduces those penalties, the reference to TWF is just meant to show that this works the same way, and that the feats are effectively the same (so they don't stack)

You quoted the feat it clearly states "it has one primary hand, all the others are off-hands"

Sczarni

Again, how did it get that special ability...

there's no rules that let them select from it, it was just pure fiction.

Quote:
Every creature gets an off-hand attack for weapons held in arms after the first at the usual penalties that come with fighting with multiple weapons. MWF reduces those penalties, the reference to TWF is just meant to show that this works the same way, and that the feats are effectively the same (so they don't stack)

I know you feel this way, but do you have a rule that states "Every creature gets an off-hand attack for weapons held in arms after the first"

I know I've never read such a rule.

Sczarni

All that this feat does is replace two weapon fighting's restriction from one offhand penalty reduction to all off hands... it does not confer the ability to perform more than one off hand attack, and there are no rules that I've ever found that allow you to have more than one off hand attack, except for feats like improved two weapon fighting, flurry, etc...

Feel free to prove me wrong, but so far no one here has quoted a rule that supports their opinion but me.


lantzkev wrote:

Again, how did it get that special ability...

there's no rules that let them select from it, it was just pure fiction.

I guess unique class features and monster abilities are all pure fiction now.

lantzkev wrote:
Feel free to prove me wrong, but so far no one here has quoted a rule that supports their opinion but me.

I'm sorry, but you going "Nuh-uh, doesn't count lol" every time someone brings something up does not mean that their arguments are invalid.


And I remain unsure ... I gather, therefore, that nothing official has been decided? It seems that this discussion ends up highlighting others I have reviewed: the rules can be read either way as there is enough ambiguity that leads to interpretations that differ. Fair observation?

Sczarni

Again Ryjjin, the rules are permissive, not restrictive, if there's no rule that allows you to, you can't.

Pointing to the bestiary to support your opinion is just foolish, specifically when you're not even using the rules there, but a creature entry to support what you THINK a PC can do. NPCs do not always follow character rules.

The rules do not read either way, aside from me no one has quoted any rules. The closest the ones supporting "an attack for every limb!" have pointed to, get this, a monster not a rule.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

So, all the multiweapon fighting example in the monster statblocks are rules breaking mix-ups?

Also, the degrading comments, and name calling is not needed.

Being a jerk is actually against the board rules. Please respect them.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Even a character with only two arms can wield six weapons (two weapons in hand plus spiked armor, barbazu beard and two blade boots).


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite.

let me bold something, then.

Quote:

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.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
lantzkev wrote:
Again Rynjin, the rules are permissive, not restrictive, if there's no rule that allows you to, you can't.

As someone once pointed out, there are no rules for tying your boots in Pathfinder. I guess everyone just stumbles around everywhere.

Though now that I think of it maybe that's a good explanation for early level Fighters only being able to swing once per 6 seconds, they're too busy stumbling over their own shoelaces at early levels to do anything more.

lantzkev wrote:


Pointing to the bestiary to support your opinion is just foolish, specifically when you're not even using the rules there, but a creature entry to support what you THINK a PC can do. NPCs do not always follow character rules.

Ehm, yes they do. They follow PC rules exactly. Sometimes they have special abilities to justify their powers, just like PCs with class levels have abilities to justify their powers, or certain Races have special abilities to justify their powers, except in a few weird cases I've found (which may not even be weird, I may just not have looked close enough).

lantzkev wrote:


The rules do not read either way, aside from me no one has quoted any rules. The closest the ones supporting "an attack for every limb!" have pointed to, get this, a monster not a rule.

Usually, as I've said before, the creators of this game have assumed the players were smart enough to look at things and go "Yeah it's possible given X conditions are satisfied" especially when you actually read Multi-Weapon fighting and it refers to fighting with your off-hands instead of fighting with your off-hand. "Attacks made with ALL of its off-hands" being the specific wording.

So people have pointed out the wording of the Feat itself and a monster that has no special rules that let him attack with multiple weapons (just one that negates the penalties), but you keep going "Nuh-uh" because nobody has pointed out to you where it says word for word what you want it to say. And that's simply not going to happen all the time when things need to be cut to save space and the creators figure it should be obvious.


Unarmed Strike wrote:
...There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed.

So yeah, you'll probably want to load up on weapons.

Sczarni

Rynjiin, the thing is there are no rules for the marilth to follow as they are no rules for getting extra attacks for extra limbs.

Give it up, your argument hinges on a bestiary entry being based on rules that don't exist for what it's doing.

Fayteri has picked up that it doesn't give you additional attacks, it just gets rid of the penalties for attacks with any other hand than the one offhand...

Your argument is "no duh it does this" because I believe it should.

So then the question becomes, well since I have two legs and two arms, why I can't I dual wield as a monk and start lvl 1 with 4 attacks... Because each limb has a "weapon" oh and let me snag toothy for 5...

Your argument has no rule basis.


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.

1 to 50 of 211 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Multi-armed All Messageboards