Advice on Vivisectionist Alchemist


Advice

51 to 55 of 55 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

DrDeth wrote:
Duskblade wrote:

ah, sorry. my bad. I thought you were out looking for the 'exceptions to the rule'. lol

but yea, tentacle attacks are all considered natural attacks :P so I find it hard to believe that this discovery is the 'exception to the rule'.

The Alchemist tentacles are an exception to the rule- as the rules say so. They are specifically called out as “The tentacle does not give the alchemist any extra attacks …”. This is why they don't. If it didn't specifically say “The tentacle does not give the alchemist any extra attacks …” then your argument would be valid.

Honestly what more could the devs say? “The tentacle does not give the alchemist any extra attacks , really, truly, not in a box, not with a fox. Really. We mean it. Honestly. No. Nada. Nyet. nien. Zero. Zilch. Zero. Look, we're not kidding around here- NO EXTRA ATTACKS!!. "

Vestigial arms do not give you extra attacks even if you put claws on them. "Really, truly, not in a box, not with a fox. Really. We mean it. Honestly. No. Nada. Nyet. nien. Zero. Zilch. Zero. Look, we're not kidding around here- NO EXTRA ATTACKS!!. "

None of these give you extra attacks. "Really, truly, not in a box, not with a fox. Really. We mean it. Honestly. No. Nada. Nyet. nien. Zero. Zilch. Zero. Look, we're not kidding around here- NO EXTRA ATTACKS!!. "

Again. You misunderstand what they mean by "Extra Attacks"

You do not gain extra ITERATIVE attacks.

Ergo, you cannot have four arms and wield a longsword while chucking bombs.

Natural Attacks however are NOT iterative attacks. Tentacles are a natural attack. Therefore, the tentacle does not give you an extra attack as an iterative attack, like throwing a bomb or holding a sword, but you may make a natural attack with it.

If it worked the way you described, then you could only ever attack with the tentacle as a standard action. And that's a nonsense result. No other natural attack in the game works that way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll tell you a story from 1st Ed. We were 1st level. Ran out of rations. Saw a cow in a field, it was a stray, so we decided to kill and eat it.

The DM decided the cow had 2 horns, 1 bite, 4 hooves, a body block and a tail lash. 9 attacks. When we killed it, after it dropped two party members, we asked for the eps- the DM said "5" we said "FIVE!?! it killed half the party! " DM's reply= "It was only a cow."

Hey the aurochs is a monster. It has hooves, teeth, a tail- but it only standard attack is a single gore with the horns. (It can trample under special circumstances). But it has a mouth, with large teeth- why no bit attack- that's a natural attack after all? How about the deadly tail lash?

Heck then a centipede should get 100 attacks- and beware the frumious millipede!!!

Silver Crusade

That's one badass cow.


Elamdri wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Duskblade wrote:

ah, sorry. my bad. I thought you were out looking for the 'exceptions to the rule'. lol

but yea, tentacle attacks are all considered natural attacks :P so I find it hard to believe that this discovery is the 'exception to the rule'.

The Alchemist tentacles are an exception to the rule- as the rules say so. They are specifically called out as “The tentacle does not give the alchemist any extra attacks …”. This is why they don't. If it didn't specifically say “The tentacle does not give the alchemist any extra attacks …” then your argument would be valid.

Honestly what more could the devs say? “The tentacle does not give the alchemist any extra attacks , really, truly, not in a box, not with a fox. Really. We mean it. Honestly. No. Nada. Nyet. nien. Zero. Zilch. Zero. Look, we're not kidding around here- NO EXTRA ATTACKS!!. "

Vestigial arms do not give you extra attacks even if you put claws on them. "Really, truly, not in a box, not with a fox. Really. We mean it. Honestly. No. Nada. Nyet. nien. Zero. Zilch. Zero. Look, we're not kidding around here- NO EXTRA ATTACKS!!. "

None of these give you extra attacks. "Really, truly, not in a box, not with a fox. Really. We mean it. Honestly. No. Nada. Nyet. nien. Zero. Zilch. Zero. Look, we're not kidding around here- NO EXTRA ATTACKS!!. "

Again. You misunderstand what they mean by "Extra Attacks"

You do not gain extra ITERATIVE attacks.

Ergo, you cannot have four arms and wield a longsword while chucking bombs.

Natural Attacks however are NOT iterative attacks. Tentacles are a natural attack. Therefore, the tentacle does not give you an extra attack as an iterative attack, like throwing a bomb or holding a sword, but you may make a natural attack with it.

If it worked the way you described, then you could only ever attack with the tentacle as a standard action. And that's a nonsense result. No other natural attack in the game works that way.

Note that the tentacles are NOT listed as being "natural attacks". They are listed as "The tentacle does not give the alchemist any extra attacks …” They are NOT normal tentacles. They are tentacles that do NOT give extra attacks. It specifically sez so. The alchemist doesn't get 10 toe attacks either.

I guess I do misunderstand but since I am in agreement with SKR and James Jacobs, perhaps the three of us are playing a different game than you are.

Find us a Dev that agrees with you. Go ahead, ask one.


DrDeth wrote:

I'll tell you a story from 1st Ed. We were 1st level. Ran out of rations. Saw a cow in a field, it was a stray, so we decided to kill and eat it.

The DM decided the cow had 2 horns, 1 bite, 4 hooves, a body block and a tail lash. 9 attacks. When we killed it, after it dropped two party members, we asked for the eps- the DM said "5" we said "FIVE!?! it killed half the party! " DM's reply= "It was only a cow."

Hey the aurochs is a monster. It has hooves, teeth, a tail- but it only standard attack is a single gore with the horns. (It can trample under special circumstances). But it has a mouth, with large teeth- why no bit attack- that's a natural attack after all? How about the deadly tail lash?

Heck then a centipede should get 100 attacks- and beware the frumious millipede!!!

lol, it's fairly clear that you've made up your mind so there really is no debating at this point. Believe what you like, but as I said, its a common error that the 'no extra attacks' clause gets misinterpreted so much.

It's basically designed to inform the player 'Hey, you get an extra limb, but it doesn't change the normal number of iterative attacks you can make in a round.'

All tentacle attacks are considered as natural attacks.

Until I hear an official ruling that says otherwise, that stance will not change.

Keep in mind that the 'tentacle attack' never says 'use this in place of a normal attack'.

so really, if it doesn't expressly say that, how should we interpret a 'tentacle attack'?

Well, there is the OBVIOUS way: you treat the 'tentacle attack' just like you would for ANY OTHER CREATURE with a tentacle attack...which basically equates to *drum roll*....a natural weapon :P

51 to 55 of 55 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Advice on Vivisectionist Alchemist All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Advice