|
The simplest solution, for me anyways, is to just imagine those extra arms do not exist, but only for the purposes of totaling up how many attacks you may make in a round.
Claw/Claw/Boot/Boot/Bite is perfectly acceptable.
Claw/Claw/Dagger/Dagger/Bite is not.
Claw/Claw/Claw/Claw/Bite is not.
Holding a wand, holding a shield, and attacking with your Claw/Claw/Boot/Boot/Bite would also be acceptable.
They could not perform any action, whilst you attack, by this made up restriction. No holding Shields, torches, or even flipping the bird, as this means that the attacks made with the other hands, are "extra" in that they could not be done at the same time as the other actions.I asked this exact same question in one of those extraordinarily long threads back recently, and the answer I was given (pretty sure it was SKR) was that the intention was never to give you extra attacks, only hold things. The most effective combat usage would be to hold a shield in one arm, fight with two, and use the other as your "free" hand for if you needed one.
I didn't see a difference at the time, either, but now I simply count up the number of attacks. And, the way I see it now, is that 5 is greater than 3.
Except that 3 is an arbitrary number you came up with for the "normal" number of attacks. A person without vestigial limbs can easily get 4 or 5 attacks or more via natural attacks plus unarmed strikes, boot blades, etc.
It is very simple. An alchemist with 2 arms holding daggers and feral mutagen has 5 attacks. 2 claws attacks, 1 bites attack, a main hand dagger attack, and an off hand dagger attack. As per the rules on natural attacks, you cannot take your claw attack if you are holding or using that hand for something else, but that doesn't magically make the attack vanish. So, the alchemist has 5 attacks, but is normally only allows to take 3 or those attacks when making a full attack unless they do something that frees up their hands(like boot blades).
Gaining vestigial limbs does not give the alchemist any more attacks. They still have 5 attacks. All it does is allow them to take all 5 attacks as parts of a same full attack action.
That is how the RAW reads.
PS: The reason we are dodging the unarmed strike thing is because unarmed strikes and natural attacks have some weird rules interactions that have nothing to do with this thread an I really don't want to open that can of worms.
|
|
I believe you are confusing the Monk's Flurry of Blows ability and adding natural attacks to it with making regular unarmed strikes combined with natural attacks. There are no "weird rules" involving the latter.
But as far as the OP is concerned, yes, 3 is an arbitrary number. We have been simply using it as an example, but the premise is the same: vestigial arms do not grant a character any more attacks than the same character with two arms would have gotten.
So wait I can take free actions with my extra limbs like deflect arrows and swift actions like Pally lay on hands...on self and non-actions like holding a shield.
But I can't do the following:
BAB: 16
Hands with: mace, dagger, club and sickle.
Attack once with each on any given round I full attack as I have 4 attacks?
So this seems like it was a much more complicated question that I originally thought.
What I'm going to take from this is, on the off chance that I do actually play in a campaign (which I thought was going to happen this semester but turned out to be impossible), and I want to play this alchemist concept, I'll bring it up as a grey-area interpretation and let the GM decide, because after all this the only conclusion I can make is that it depends entirely on how one defines an "extra attack".
|
With these "extra" attacks, as categorized by what is possible with two arms, then the Vestigial Arms can be performing no task, whatsoever, whilst attacking with weapons held in your hands.
As while performing these tasks, the two armed PC would be unable to attack, as his hands would be occupied, any attack made that could not be performed without these extra arms, would be considered "extra" by this false restriction.
So, no holding of a shield, or potion, or wand, or any action that requires the hand. Now, the arms accomplish nothing, but a way of looking strange.
They may as well be a set of extra, but deaf, ears.
This is your stance.
|
|
No.
Read up thread. I already addressed your concern. It was the exact same example I expressed months ago.
All that matters is the number of attacks. Period. The arms can hold anything. Even a 500lb barrel. And you can still attack with the other two.
Just imagine as if the arms never existed, but only for the purposes of determining how many attacks you would be able to make.
|
|
Then it is possible, as I showed you, with unarmed strikes/blade boot/etc.
The arms do nothing, or they function.
Feral Mutagen provides extra attacks, even with, or without the arms.
Feral mutagen is no noted as not providing the extra attacks, that it says it provides.
You cannot have it both ways.
|
|
When referring to "extra" attacks, provided by the additional arms, this is in reference to those usually provided by extra hands, such as the Marilith is provided with extra attacks, and can attack with a held weapon in each hand.
This is the reason it was pertinent to note that these were an exception, and did not provide these additional weapon attacks.
If it did not note this, then you could make additional attacks, and they could even be done without the use of hands, as though it is the additional hands giving you access to more attacks, it could be two unarmed strikes, and two boot blades. This is because none of the extra attacks are noted as being limited to hands.
So, now we know how one determines the number of manufactured attacks(or unarmed strikes available to a creature, normally. Hands determine this number, even if the attack are not made with hands.
Natural Attacks, do not have this restriction, and work differently, and separate from the way weapon attacks work.
One can make as many natural attacks, as they have, and, in addition to manufactured weapon attacks. The only restriction, is that a limb cannot be used to make more than one attack, though limb, in and of themselves, do not limit the number of natural attacks. There are creatures without limbs that can make natural attacks.
Now, certain types of natural attacks, have there own restrictions, such as a bite requiring a mouth/teeth of some kind, but this is only relevant to it's own unique restriction.
So, the limit of manufactured attacks, is for the two handed creature, two. Any more, is "extra", and above what is normally available. The normal limit of natural attacks, is however many he has.
|
I'm on BBT's side on this. Some of the examples I've seen of stuff that you can do with an extra arm are carry a shield, but because it's a weapon, you can't bash with it? The arm's are malformed or anything, since as long as you're not breaking "the rule of three" you can use them for attacks, such as if you were carrying something in your main arms, and used your V. arms to wield weapons.
The wording on the arms is very murky, and I'd like to see it cleaned up a bit rather than having it left up for debate.
You can do that just fine, as a character with two arms is capable of doing the same thing.
In my example I had a character with 4 attacks using a diffferent weapon with each attack. I say you can do this as it doesn't give you any extra attacks. I mean I could attack 4 times with one weapon.
However, you say I can't do anything that a two armed character couldn't do...which he clearly cannot attack with 4 different hand held weapons per turn.
Further, I could hold a shield and attack with a two handed weapon something a two armed character also could not do. Wait I have 4 arms I could stab with a dagger too as long as I didn't exceed 4 attacks.
Anyways, that's how I see it. Natural attacks aside as I'm not sure on that.
I'm on BBT's side on this. Some of the examples I've seen of stuff that you can do with an extra arm are carry a shield, but because it's a weapon, you can't bash with it? The arm's are malformed or anything, since as long as you're not breaking "the rule of three" you can use them for attacks, such as if you were carrying something in your main arms, and used your V. arms to wield weapons.
The wording on the arms is very murky, and I'd like to see it cleaned up a bit rather than having it left up for debate.
I agree. I prefer to look at it on BBT's side (admittedly because that's what I wanted the truth to be all along) but it's definitely vague.
So this seems like it was a much more complicated question that I originally thought.
It really isn't Just, as usual, some people are making it more complicated than it needs to be.
You can make any natural attacks you have in conjunction with any manufactured weapons you have as long as neither occupies the same limb.
If you have 2 arms, you can't claw/claw/dagger/dagger.
If you have 4 limbs, you can, since your daggers are no longer taking up the limbs required to claw.
It is that simple.
What the arms will NOT let you do is make more than your normal number of attacks, as it said.
You cannot dagger/dagger/dagger/dagger with 4 arms. You can't Greatsword/Dagger/Dagger either, or anything like that. Just like you can't Dagger/Dagger/Boot/Boot if you're wearing boot blades.
Manufactured weapon attacks are purely limited to your number of iteratives or extra attacks ala TWFing, not number of limbs you have, hence the restriction.
Natural attacks work a bit differently from this since they specifically say you can make them alongside or in addition to manufactured weapon attacks assuming no limb overlap. But having them in addition to your manufactured attacks does not make them "extra".
It is as simple as that, other people just like to make things more complicated.
Unarmed Strikes are not a "rockem sockem" only thing.
Extra is extra, by meaning more, than before.
So, make up limits all you want.
That's not RAW.
Houserule, as it tickles your fancy.
Cheat as it tickles your fancy. I'm not house ruling anything. You cannot claw claw bite unarmed unarmed. The SKR links make that bit of rule clarification perfectly clear.
Cheat as it tickles your fancy.
"Cheat". Pff.
I'm not house ruling anything. You cannot claw claw bite unarmed unarmed. The SKR links make that bit of rule clarification perfectly clear.
They do nothing of the sort.
The FAQ is regarding Armor Spikes (a manufactured weapon) and a Greatsword (a manufactured weapon).
It has no bearing on the interaction between Natural Attacks and manufactured weapons (or the weird pseudo-hybrid between them that Unarmed Strikes are).
Hell, the number of creatures in the book that have an attack routine of Weapon/Claw/Bite should be enough to quell that argument right there.
|
|
Cheat as it tickles your fancy. I'm not house ruling anything. You cannot claw claw bite unarmed unarmed. The SKR links make that bit of rule clarification perfectly clear.Unarmed Strikes are not a "rockem sockem" only thing.
Extra is extra, by meaning more, than before.
So, make up limits all you want.
That's not RAW.
Houserule, as it tickles your fancy.
Absolutely untrue. Look anywhere describing unarmed strikes at all in the rules.
There is no "fist only" restriction ever, anywhere.
It is made up, from nothing.
You have nothing resembling proof, of any kind, and you never will.
This may as well be a "Elves can't fart" rule, as it is just as silly, and noted nowhere.
You can claw/claw, and unarmed strike/unarmed strike to your heart's content, and nothing short of some mad DM's houserule will stop anyone.
I actually tried this with an alchemist I made recently (only I used tentacle instead of arms) and it seemed no problem until I reread feral mutagen.
The claws and bite are primary attacks T.T
Which meant I couldn't use my tentacle first and then the claws and bite as secondary natural attacks right? Come to think of it I checked the other sources of natural attacks (e.g. races) and they are primary too...
Natural attacks suck...
Not sure what the problem is? You can always make as many primary attacks as you have (except in the case of obstructing the attack with a held item, noted above)
Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts...
It doesn't just say that for monks. It says that for all unarmed strikes.
Is there a difference between extra attacks and additional attacks?
The arms says it does not grant any extra attacks OR ACTIONS.
In the natural attacks sections, it states when u are holding a weapon, u are making additional attacks when u attack with natural weapons.
Arm holding a shield without attacking with it, ur harder to hit and u are not taking any additional attacks or actions.
Arm holding a potion, u use the potion as a standard action but u don't receive an aoo because u are not digging thru to grab it.
Another thing is that when using ur arm to use a weapon is says that u are two weapon fighting. Which to me is stating that using ur arm u accquired means it cannot be used as the main hand means that with 2 of these arms u coukdnt use only these for manufactured weapons because ur natural attacks would be offhand which couldnt be. I know u can disenate any arm to be a main hand but these seems specific in its wording to apply that this specific arm u acquired cannot be used as a main hand. I don't even think u can use the arm holding the only weapon or attacking witb only that arm because it states u are two weapon fight when using that arm. Im trying to think of the type of rules that are exceptions, and I believe tbis one of them.
Otherwise I'm with the crowd in thinking that when determining how many attacks, determine them as if u had 2 arms. Because the arm doesn't grant extra attacks or ACTIONS.
And I coukd be so horribly wrong like I have been so many times before, but throwing that out there to learn. Otherwise it seems so confusing after I saw this on the web.
I believe you are confusing the Monk's Flurry of Blows ability and adding natural attacks to it with making regular unarmed strikes combined with natural attacks. There are no "weird rules" involving the latter.
But as far as the OP is concerned, yes, 3 is an arbitrary number. We have been simply using it as an example, but the premise is the same: vestigial arms do not grant a character any more attacks than the same character with two arms would have gotten.
Great, except that is not what the rules say.
The arm does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round, though the arm can wield a weapon and make attacks as part of the alchemist’s attack routine (using two-weapon fighting).
The phrase "more attacks than normal" does not appear anywhere in the rules for vestigial arms.
1. Vestigial arms do not give you attack, but they specifically allow you to take any attacks you would normally get with weapons with the vestigial arms.
2. Feral Mutagen gives you 2 claw attacks and a bite attack as long as you are not holding anything in the hand that is making the claw attack.
|
|
For sake of example let's remove the Feral Mutagen aspect of the debate.
Tengu Alchemist, with two natural claws and a bite of its own, grows two Vestigial Arms. It's my understanding that these new arms will not have any claws on them, because the Tengu's alternate racial that grants claws specifically only grants two.
Can that Tengu now dagger/dagger/claw/claw/bite?
Those new arms are certainly adding more attacks to the Tengu's routine in this situation, right? More than a regular Tengu would have, at least.
I think of the words "more", "extra", and "additional" as all being one and the same. And I don't really see a game-defined reason why they would be treated differently.
Absolutely untrue. Look anywhere describing unarmed strikes at all in the rules.
There is no "fist only" restriction ever, anywhere.
Nor did i say that there was one.
It is made up, from nothing.
The rules limit you to bab+two weapon fighting with your unarmed attacks:
Some fey, humanoids, monstrous humanoids, and outsiders do not possess natural attacks. These creatures can make unarmed strikes, but treat them as weapons for the purpose of determining attack bonuses, and they must use the two-weapon fighting rules when making attacks with both hands.
Its the assumption in the rules that they're describing a non levitating bipedal humanoid with bi lateral symmetry (because thats what it was written for and mostly by)
I am not saying you can't kick as your unarmed strike. I'm not saying you can't headbut as your unarmed strike. I'm saying you cannot simply declare every part of your body as an extra limb to get more weapon attacks: Even though you can punch with your left hand, punch with your right hand, kick with your left leg, kick with your right leg, or head butt as an unarmed strike you cannot headbutt punch punch kick kick and finish them off with a tanuki bash attack!- because the rules limit you two two weapon fighting when making unarmed strikes.
You can claw/claw, and unarmed strike/unarmed strike to your heart's content, and nothing short of some mad DM's houserule will stop anyone.
Or clarification from the Devs.
But you've already seen this. You know its there, You know what you're doing it trying to twist the rules into allowing a more powerful character, and you only don't care, you seem primed to insult anyone stifling your "Creativity".
|
|
Well, lets add that text to this discussion:
I wouldn't let a fighter make claw/claw/bite plus knees and kicks any more than I'd let a fighter make rapier/dagger plus knees and kicks, or punch/punch plus knees and kicks.
The rules don't let you keep on adding attacks as you think up appropriate body parts to attack with, and it doesn't let you use those extra attacks just because your hands are full. The rules say you can make one attack per round, or two with TWF, and iterative attacks according to your BAB. The rules don't care if your unarmed strike is a punch, kick, or headbutt, it just cares that you get only one additional attack if you're using TWF.
If the fighter can normally use lefthand/righthand, and is instead using leftclaw/rightclaw, he can't start making kicks, knees, and headbutts in addition to those claw attacks "just because he's not using unarmed strikes."
Isn't there a penalty for combining natural attacks with regular/weapon attacks? Isn't that what the multiattack feat is for? Regardless maybe someone stating this out at two attacks and four attack with vestigial arms and without as well as with feral mutagen and without.
...well that is a lot of permutations.
Well, lets add that text to this discussion:
I wouldn't let a fighter make claw/claw/bite plus knees and kicks any more than I'd let a fighter make rapier/dagger plus knees and kicks, or punch/punch plus knees and kicks.
The rules don't let you keep on adding attacks as you think up appropriate body parts to attack with, and it doesn't let you use those extra attacks just because your hands are full. The rules say you can make one attack per round, or two with TWF, and iterative attacks according to your BAB. The rules don't care if your unarmed strike is a punch, kick, or headbutt, it just cares that you get only one additional attack if you're using TWF.
If the fighter can normally use lefthand/righthand, and is instead using leftclaw/rightclaw, he can't start making kicks, knees, and headbutts in addition to those claw attacks "just because he's not using unarmed strikes."
Which is all well and good...but it's NOT what the rules say and SKR has gone on record MANY TIMES that when he says "I wouldn't let X in my game" does NOT mean it's not in the rules.
There's no difference between Claw/Claw/Kick/Kick and Dagger/Dagger/Wing Buffet/Wing Buffet besides the body parts being used. Both of these attack routines are legal.
In addition, the CONTEXT of that post is talking about why you can't make more unarmed attacks than you get from BaB/TWFing just because you have spare body parts to use. So it's doubly irrelevant to an actual rules discussion.
I trust this post (linked to in the same thread you linked to):
I'd argue that animal fury is just using redundant language so the player doesn't need to look up the rules for natural attacks in the Bestiary. Odds are, your barbarian is still using weapons, and the bite is just part of the attack routine. Thus, even though it's a primary natural attack, it uses the normal manuf+natural rule where you make your normal attacks with your manuf weapons, and add in the natural weapon... at a -5 penalty.
UMR: "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."
It would seem to be better if things that grant natural attacks just said 'This is a natural attack that does <dmg> and follows all natural attack rules' rather than trying to put all the primary/secondary rules in to the power and assuming they'll only be used as secondary attacks.I agree that would be better. Unfortunately, we didn't do that in the Core Rulebook (partly because the Bestiary wasn't done yet, and partly because we didn't want to refer players to the Bestiary), and when people model a new ability, they usually base it on the existing presentation of a similar ability, which means you're going to get this language weirdness.
So, short answer: if something gives you a natural attack, it gives you a natural attack (whether that's primary or secondary is built into the attack, just as a claw or bite is always primary and a tentacle or hoof is always secondary), and your chosen attack sequence may change whether you use your full BAB or use the –5 for it being in addition to manufactured weapons or other primary attacks.
Trust me, guys, I agree that there are SO many things in the Core Rulebook that could be written more clearly and more forward-looking, and using that imperfect wording in later products (because it's the "standard" wording) doesn't make things any clearer. The most important goal I set for myself was to look at all the text going into the Beginner Box, especially if it came from the Core Rulebook, and rewrite it so it was clearer and simpler. The game is complex... too damn complex, and fancy writing usually doesn't add clarity. I'm pretty sure if I rewrote the Core Rulebook, it would be clearer and about 32 pages shorter.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mhfx&page=2?Prehensile-Hair-skill- use#66
Which quotes the actual rules more than I do his "Here's how I'd limit this in MY game" post.
Isn't there a penalty for combining natural attacks with regular/weapon attacks? Isn't that what the multiattack feat is for? Regardless maybe someone stating this out at two attacks and four attack with vestigial arms and without as well as with feral mutagen and without.
...well that is a lot of permutations.
Yes, that is in the rules I quoted earlier. If you are making normal attacks with a weapon, all natural attacks become secondary attacks, even if they are normally primary attacks. Secondary attacks are a BAB-5. Multiattack reduces secondary attacks to BAB-2.
For sake of example let's remove the Feral Mutagen aspect of the debate.
Tengu Alchemist, with two natural claws and a bite of its own, grows two Vestigial Arms. It's my understanding that these new arms will not have any claws on them, because the Tengu's alternate racial that grants claws specifically only grants two.
Can that Tengu now dagger/dagger/claw/claw/bite?
Yes, a Tengu with 2 daggers has 5 attacks dagger/dagger/claw/claw/bite. As per the rules for claw attacks, they cannot take their claw attacks as part of a full attack because there is something in those hands. Vestigial arms lets you have your clawed hands empty thus making you eligible to take your claw attacks during a full attack.
Those new arms are certainly adding more attacks to the Tengu's routine in this situation, right? More than a regular Tengu would have, at least.
I think of the words "more", "extra", and "additional" as all being one and the same. And I don't really see a game-defined reason why they would be treated differently.
Every creature has a main hand and an off hand attack. If I have a dagger in each hand, then I wear 2 boot blades, I still only get one off hand attack during a full attack. The rules for vestigial arms clearly prevents you from gaining multiple offhand attacks, but they still allow you to take any attacks you are eligible for.
Attacks you are eligible for during a full attack:
1. Mainhand Attack
2. Off hand(if available)
3. All natural attacks as secondaries
3a. Bite attack
3b. Claw attack if not wielding a weapon in that hand.
I think the main problem people are having here is assuming that these claw attacks are MORE attacks than he would normally get because he can't take them while wielding daggers normally.
This is not the case. It is just that he is getting LESS attacks than he should when wielding daggers because his claw attacks are being neutralized by holding weapons in them.
I think I'm siding with the group of you can get have natural attacks and normal attacks but with the -5 on all natural attacks.
I think peoples problem is that it seems a bit too good. Or maybe a bit cheesey.
Maybe. But it's not the most powerful or cheesy thing out there forsure. Also having four arms should give you some serious social problems but that is another matter.
I think, given the fact that Alchemist seems to be the ONLY class that can gain this, and it's a medium BAB class that needs at least 16 int for it's other class features, it's not so game breaking.
I think, given the fact that Alchemist seems to be the ONLY class that can gain this, and it's a medium BAB class that needs at least 16 int for it's other class features, it's not so game breaking.
Actually, you only need two levels of alchemist and a feat. You only lose one point of BAB and you don't need intelligence for discoveries.
I think, given the fact that Alchemist seems to be the ONLY class that can gain this, and it's a medium BAB class that needs at least 16 int for it's other class features, it's not so game breaking.Actually, you only need two levels of alchemist and a feat. You only lose one point of BAB and you don't need intelligence for discoveries.
We don't class dip/multiclass in these parts, but technically you'd need more:
2nd Level Discovery: Feral Mutagen
3rd level feat: Vestigial Arms
5th level feat: Vestigial Arms
Assuming the class being dipped from is not a fighter, it would take until 5th level at least. The strategy comes with the further condition of only being viable while using the mutagen, which will only last 2 minutes (at the minimum alchemist investment) and takes 1 hour to brew.
You guys can argue back and forth all you want about this one, but it won't be clear until we get a clear FAQ entry about the issue. So why do you guys spend so much time arguing about it??
Because it actually is clear and a FAQ is unnecessary if we can get people to understand that.
Scratch that last post. Wouldn't matter if it was a fighter because they aren't combat feats. So it's taking a 2-level dip at the start of the game for a strategy that won't "come online" until at least 5th level, with a martial character losing 1 point of BAB, some hp, and being behind on your primary class features for 3 secondary natural attacks that can only be used for effectively one encounter per day (unless the other PCs feel like sitting around for an hour after every combat).
Or play a tengu (or catfolk or barbarian w/ beast totem) as was mentioned earlier and you're back to two levels and a feat. And if you haven't dumped Dex, then you've picked up some self buff to make up for that lost BAB.
Being a beast race breaks my concept but I digress. The game has a lot of powerful niche builds, and gaining a couple non-magical secondary attacks isn't even remotely the worst.