I know of no Improved Multi-Weapon Fighting or Greater Multi-Weapon fighting from any source.
If I were your GM, I'd allow you to take the Improved and Greater Two-Weapon fighting multiple times, each affecting one of your additional attacks.
|
If you were in my game, I'd probably have you designate a primary pair of hands and gain the benefits of Improved/Greater Two-Weapon Fighting with them, and use Multi-Weapon Fighting with the secondary pair. That way you have one really awesome hand, one above average hand, and two normal hits. All those extra attacks can be really unbalancing and make it hard for the GM to design encounters.
But, as Slimgauge points out, there is no Improved/Greater Multi-Weapon Fighting. You could always houserule a version of them.
|
Here you go.
There is currently no way to determine how many attacks one gets with Multiweapon Fighting.
For now, you have as many attacks as the weapons you wield.
So, how many Unarmed Strikes do you have?
As many as you want.
So, what is the community consensus here? RAW the benefit of improved/greater two-weapon fighting extend to any off-hand weapon (regardless of how many you have). Does using it with multi-weapon fighting violate the RAI, though? Or were the improved/greater multi-weapon fighting feats left out because the wording of the two-weapon equivalent allowed for it?
The article "an" means "one". There's nothing to support using more than one off-hand weapon when using TWF, or for that matter shoehorning TWF feats into MWF.
Numerical mechanics (assuming only one main hand attack, minimum penalty):
1. GTWF on a two-armed creature gets -2 on the main hand, then three attacks at increasing penalties (I'm really tired and can't remember if it's -2, -5, -10 or -2, -7, -12)
1. MWF on a four-armed creature gets -2 on the on the main hand, then three attacks at -2.
MWF for a four-armed creature is already ahead of GTWF, at the cost of one feat. If you can give yourself more arms, it's even more ridiculous, because for N arms you get (again, assuming minimum penalties) N attacks at -2.
Also, since MWF replaces TWF for creatures with more than two arms, you can't have MWF and TWF, and without TWF you can't qualify for ITWF or GTWF or any of the other TWF-prereq feats.
@BBT: ??? I...I think you're just confusing the issue now, in more ways than one.
Here you go.
There is currently no way to determine how many attacks one gets with Multiweapon Fighting.
For now, you have as many attacks as the weapons you wield.
So, how many Unarmed Strikes do you have?
As many as you want.
Bbt I'm going to call you out in this as you know it's not unlimited at best it would be one per limb + heads. Even then this is why multiweapon fighting is near impossible to get as a pc. Even without unarmed strikes one can gain an absurd number of attacks just using weapons if multi weapon fighting.
|
|
Bbt I'm going to call you out in this as you know it's not unlimited at best it would be one per limb + heads. Even then this is why multiweapon fighting is near impossible to get as a pc. Even without unarmed strikes one can gain an absurd number of attacks just using weapons if multi weapon fighting.
Noted here, the Unarmed Strike is limb-agnostic, so a limb based limit is incompatible with this stance.
Noted here, the Unarmed Strike is limb-agnostic, so a limb based limit is incompatible with this stance.
Before SKR's ruling, you said that same FAQ meant you got one Unarmed Strike, no matter how many limbs you had. Now you're saying it means you get infinite attacks. Not helping, dude.
Your still pushing an agenda what part of "Unarmed Strike: For the purpose of magic fang and other spells, is an unarmed strike your whole body, or is it a part of your body (such as a fist or kick)?" says to you that unarmed strike is for everything in the game one weapon?
And even if it is that does mean you now get to choose the MWF attack string of hands plus feet plus elbows plus knees plus heads plus shoulders plus etc? You want it to work a certain way so you keep making these outlandish claims to hope enough people will freak out and demand the devs take back the TWF ruling.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just grab four Kukris, a Dwarven Boulder Helmet, two Blade Boots, some Armor Spikes, and throw in an Unarmed Strike.
That's nine attacks.
You may say that doesn't work, but how does one determine the number of attacks available to a Multiattacking creature?
I haven't found a RAW answer to that.
From a mostly RAW/RAI standpoint regarding MWF I would say it, ITWF and GTWF aren't mutually exclusive.
MWF replaces TWF for a creature with more than 2 'arms' that means it allows off hand attacks for each limb as well as counting as TWF for prereqs.
ITWF could be taken as well as GTWF using MWF as a prereq (if you weren't getting it as A bonus feat and able to ignore prereq).
The problem for your character is there is no MWF 'version' of ITWF/GTWF to replace the vanillla feats with.
So in your case you take MWFing and get your primary attack and three off hand attacks (The feat states specifically you get off hand attacks with all other limbs instead of a single extra attack).
You then get ITWF, this gives you a secondary off hand attack at -5. It is a single extra attack RAW. There is no Improved MWF with a benefit stating 'you get a secondary attack with all off hand limbs' or special stating 'this feat replaces ITWF for a creature with more than 2 arms' to refer to. You get to have more than a single extra attack (because MWF gives you more) but ITWF still refers to TWF and only grants a secondary attack to a single off hand. For easy of number crunching, 4 short swords and a +6 BAB doing full attack would end up looking like:
Primary +4/-1, Secondary (+4/+4/+4 MWF)/(-1 ITWF)
The same for GTWF which grants a third attack with penalty to the off hand weapon. Singular 'weapon' not multiple.
RAW would be MWF/ITWF/GTWF, as there aren't any feats that replace the TWF chain with a multi limb version beyond the initial. Obviously you might be able to ask your GM to make some up however...
@Skylancer: Read the way the mechanical benefit of improved/greater two-weapon fighting is written. I copied them into an above post. Basically both feats just grant you an additional attack with an off-hand weapon at a penalty in line with iterative attack penalties. It doesn't say it only applies to your first off-hand weapon. As written, the feats can be applied to any off-hand weapon you are wielding. The feats tell me I get extra attacks with an off-hand weapon. My character just happens to wield three off-hand weapons so I can take more advantage of it than others. Now, RAI may differ on the subject and the feats may not be meant to be compatible with MWF but RAW they are.
Not really, it still refers back to TWF, which is the prereq. The RAW of ITWF is referring back to a single solitary attack gained from the prereq feat. It is even called IMPROVED TWO WEAPON FIGHTING, notice it has nothing to do with MULTI weapon fighting, which because of a special line allows the creature to take the other feats in the chain that the feat is replacing in a loose interpretation. The ITWF feat states 'an' (singular) off hand gets the second attack as has been pointed out earlier in the thread. That precludes you gaining attacks with 'all' your off hands as you seem to be trying for.
Heck by a strict reading of the rules you cannot use MWF to qualify for ITWF/GTWF so your point is moot (you need TWF as a prereq which is redundant if you take MWF). There are no multi weapon fighting feats beyond the first, RAW you never get a secondary attack with all 'off hands' if you have more than 2 arms via feats (though racial abilities may do so).
No matter how you read it, run it through your GM since this is a house game.
You are already getting 4 attacks by your GM allowing you to play a PC with multiple arms and use multiweapon fighting. 4 attacks man, a fighter has to wait until 6th level and burn another feat to do that, 3/4 BAB classes (like rogue) have to wait longer. Your getting quite a boon from your GM, and if I were you I wouldn't try to push it further.
My GM is cool with people wanting to play something different even if its a little more powerful, but you have to know when to just eat your cake and not ask for seconds.
Prereq isn't an issue because my character is a Ranger and can thus ignore prereqs by selecting improved/greater TWF as style feats. There's that issue solved. To get to the RAW issue Skylancer disagrees with me about.
"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."
That is the extent and exact wording of the benefit of the feat improved two-weapon fighting. In what universe does that wording preclude the use of more than one off-hand weapon with the feat? It just says in addition to the extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with it. It doesn't say your first off-hand weapon. It doesn't say the feat can only be applied once. Therefore, the feat can be applied to any off-hand weapon you are wielding. That is simply the way the feat is written. That may not be the way it was intended to be used but it is written so that it can be.
"You get a third attack with your off-hand weapon, albeit at a –10 penalty."
That is the extent and exact wording of the benefit of the feat greater two-weapon fighting. Mildly more ambiguous as the lack of the word an leaves reference to off-hand weapon slightly more specific. It is easier to infer the feat refers to a single off-hand weapon with this wording. However, there is still no clear definition within the benefit of the feat that prevents it from being applied to every off-hand weapon you happen to be wielding. The argument between RAW and RAI is just a little more open and in the air.
As to concerns over the character being too powerful...... We'll be fighting beefed up giants half the campaign, outsiders throughout, and our other melee character is a goblin feral gnasher so my character being powerful in melee might be very much needed. Consequentially, I'll also be handling scouting and trapfinding via the trapper archetype.
Just because you can take the feat as a bonus feat doesn't change RAW. It still refers to TWO weapon fighting. Which refers to 'an' (singular off hand, not multi weapon fighting
Prereq isn't an issue because my character is a Ranger and can thus ignore prereqs by selecting improved/greater TWF as style feats. There's that issue solved. To get to the RAW issue Skylancer disagrees with me about.
"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."
That is the extent and exact wording of the benefit of the feat improved two-weapon fighting. In what universe does that wording preclude the use of more than one off-hand weapon with the feat? It just says in addition to the extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with it. It doesn't say your first off-hand weapon. It doesn't say the feat can only be applied once. Therefore, the feat can be applied to any off-hand weapon you are wielding. That is simply the way the feat is written. That may not be the way it was intended to be used but it is written so that it can be.
"You get a third attack with your off-hand weapon, albeit at a –10 penalty."
That is the extent and exact wording of the benefit of the feat greater two-weapon fighting. Mildly more ambiguous as the lack of the word an leaves reference to off-hand weapon slightly more specific. It is easier to infer the feat refers to a single off-hand weapon with this wording. However, there is still no clear definition within the benefit of the feat that prevents it from being applied to every off-hand weapon you happen to be wielding. The argument between RAW and RAI is just a little more open and in the air.
As to concerns over the character being too powerful...... We'll be fighting beefed up giants half the campaign, outsiders throughout, and our other melee character is a goblin feral gnasher so my character being powerful in melee might be very much needed. Consequentially, I'll also be handling scouting and trapfinding via the trapper archetype.
Just because you can take the feat as a bonus feat doesn't change RAW. It still refers to TWO weapon fighting. Which refers to 'an' (singular off hand, not MULTI weapon fighting. Taking it as a ranger 'bonus' feat doesn't change that. You'll still notice there is absolutely no IMWF or GMWF feat. Improved Two Weapon and Greater Two Weapon Fighting do nothing at all to improve the Multi Weapon Fighting. Prereq or not, the feats still work off of and refer back to Two Weapon Fighting NOT Multi Weapon Fighting. RAW.
RAW the only feat that helps a overly multi limbed creature is Multi Weapon Fighting. Everything else is TWO weapon fighting, strictly limited to 'an' additional attack resulting from 'an' off hand attack. 'An' being singular in the english language with which the rules are written?
Improved Multi Weapon Fighting and Greater Multi Weapon Fighting don't exist RAW. ITWF and GTWF refer to, and build off of, the singular attack of a singular off hand attack. The increase of attacks require
|
|
If your race lets you get additional attacks for extra limbs, you get those. If you're using unarmed strike that's fine, but using unarmed strike won't magically give you more attacks than a version of your race using say all short swords and the same feats.
The number of weapons at your disposal doesn't change your ability to perform a certain number of attacks. Which is limited to your BAB and things like TWF, or in this case Multi-weapon fighting.
And multi-weapon fighting only reduces your penalty for fighting with mutliple weapons it doesn't give the ability to. Your racial traits will and combat section will.
If its a homebrew game, the rules may be a bit more flexible. However, as previously pointed out in the wording of ITWF and GTWF, it states "an off hand attack" and "your off hand weapon." The wording makes it clear that its stacking extra attacks on top of one off hand attack. Its true that the feat doesn't specify exactly only one off hand weapon but if we're going stricly by RAW, you can't stack multi-weapon fighting with itself to gain a number of attacks equal to (4+multiple MWF feats). Main reason being, the MWF feat doesn't state that it stacks with itself. The same way something like improved initiative can only be taken once. To get the greater bonus on top of improved initiative requires the feat, lightning initiative. The feat description clearly states that lightning initiative stacks with improved initiative. Unless the feat description states that a certain feat stacks with itself, it can only be taken once. Since the improved and greater versions of MWF don't exist, such a feat tree isn't an option. I'm going strctly by RAW as I'm not certain if your dm has houseruled an allowance of this stacking with the TWF feat tree.
All in all, 4 attacks is already quite a bit. Your character won't be lacking in the melee department. As previously pointed out, a character with good bab has to wait till level six and have TWF and ITWF. if the off hand is light, penalties are still something like (main) -2,-7, (off)-2,-7. You on the other hand are sitting on -4,-4,-4,-4. you're on -16 while the individual with good bab is sitting on -18. Your character is sitting on the same number of attacks but lower penalties despite the good bab individual investing more (two feats versus your character's one feat). On top of that, you get four attacks straight from the get-go. The good bab individual still has to wait till level six. I'd be pretty happy wih the current setup since from the perspective of mechanical advantages, your character has got a really good deal.
@skrlancer: I think the problem here is you are woefully misconstruing the use of the word 'an' in that feat as opposed to how it is actually being applied within the confines of the English language. The word 'an' in that sentence is being used as an indicator to direct reference to what is being discussed. It means it is referring to 'an' off-hand as opposed to a main hand, for instance. It is not being used as a limiter to indicate quantity. Also, as a reminder, the only thing that matters in a feat is the text in the prerequisites (subverted via the Ranger class in my case) and the text under the benefit (and in some cases the special section). The name and flavor text of the feat mean nothing for the actual function of the feat. Therefore, if RAW the feat allows for it to be applied to three off-hands it doesn't matter if the feat is called improved two-weapon fighting. The fact of the matter is, RAW the feats work with MWF for all off-hands (even though MWF doesn't legally satisfy the prereq). Now, if you want to argue that RAI they are not meant to I would be more than happy to listen to it. When I have this discussion with my GM I want to bring him both sides of the argument fully hashed out.
So because you want to get 12+ attacks you are going to take the word 'an' out of its given context in the feats where it is fully explained, and use your reasoning to get your way?
I've given you a loose interpretation and then the strict reading, neither of those get you what you want.
Talk your GM into making up Improved Multi Weapon Fighting and Greater Multi Weapon Fighting, maybe you should go to the suggestions/advice forums to get what you are looking for as it doesn't occur 'naturally' in the core rules. RAW the TWF feats don't interact with MWF at all.
Ignoring for the moment that TWF chain and MWF feat do not in any way interact with each other, yet again.
The ITWF feat says gain 'an' additional off hand attack, the table says gain additional off hand attack. Notice the lack of an S and use of 'an,' both of these would be indicators of a singular subject, not plurals as you are attempting to wriggle in.
GTWF feat says gain gain additional off hand attack, the table states gain a third off hand attack. Again no plurals and the table specifically calls out a third attack.
These are both RAW, and follow the english language indicators for singular additions.
MWF is the only feat in the game which allows you to gain a singular extra attack with ALL available limbs. If you have multiple off hands, ITWF allows you to choose ONE of those off hands and make an additional attack with it. It just so happens the english wording follows the intent (imagine that, right?) of rules. The same with GTWF, you gain a third attack with your choice of one of your off hand weapons, because the RAW says 'gain a third attack with your off hand weapon' (again with the singular, YAY english with its use of 's' for when it wants to indicate the plural of 'attack' and 'weapon').
Gaining multiple off hand attacks for a creature which qualifies for MWF is not something the CORE rules allows for. CORE rules allows for the addition of a singular off hand attack for each feat taken of the TWF chain.
Your GM seems the lenient type, ask them to make up a house rule or create a feat line for MWF that mirrors the TWF line. I honestly don't even know why you'd keep coming back here unless you are hoping someone will agree with your interpretation on the rules forum so you can point your GM here and say 'See I told you it worked this way.' Because they don't think it works the way you seem to think it should.
|
|
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.
As you can see the feat doesn't confer any additional attacks at all. It says nothing about getting extra attacks it just reduces the penalties for doing so if you can.
There is no rule in the game that gives you permission to make an attack with every offhand you have, there are only hints that you might be able to in creature blocks.
Also any feat that would require two weapon fighting, this feat would count towards that in my opinion, but I'm not sure it's actually the case.
I've sent Sean K Reynolds a message about this, if I'm lucky he might reply to it, or even reply here.