Nothing we are arguing should be considered "additional" or "extra". Once you get over that idea, it will make much more sense to you.
You are arguing that one method of gaining more attacks is not extra because there are other ways of gaining more attacks that can arrive at the same number.
By that definition there's almost no such thing as an extra attack because you can always comb the rules for just one more.
|
A one-armed human can swing a sword for one attack.
With two-weapon fighting he can swing a sword, and make an unarmed strike, for two attacks.
With Haste he can get a total of three attacks.
With a Base Attack Bonus of +6, he can get a total of four attacks.
Each of these are "extra" attacks. Yes, there are obviously many ways to achieve "extra" attacks. But Vestigial Arms are not one of those ways.
Now let's give that human a Vestigial Arm.
He can swing a sword for one attack.
With two-weapon fighting he can swing a sword, and make an unarmed strike, for two attacks.
With Haste he can get a total of three attacks.
With a Base Attack Bonus of +6, he can get a total of four attacks.
But, the way people are tossing the word "additional" and "extra" around, they would have you believe that the moment you put a dagger in that Vestigial Arm, you suddenly lose attacks.
There is simply no rule to support that.
That same human should be able to two-weapon fight with a sword and a dagger, getting the same two attacks he was before.
With Haste, this becomes three.
With a Base Attack Bonus of +6, this becomes four.
Same as before.
Nothing "extra".
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hear you asking to keep the debate out of this, I see how you are trying to do that, and providing links to other threads, but I do not respect you, nor your wish to keep the debate out of this thread.
/sigh
Very well.
--------
The fundamental issue of the opposition (2claw+2claw+VA=4claw), is that Vestigial arms does not grant you "extra" attacks.
Vestigial Arm does not grant you additional melee attacks.
Vestigial Arm does not grant you additional natural attacks either.
The intent is that you have an extra arm for holding stuff, not to turn you into a double-greatsword-wielding maniac.
The vestigial limb is also not giving you any extra actions. For example, a normal character can use twf to attack with a manufactured weapon in one hand and one unarmed strike, whether that's a punch, kick, or headbutt. He doesn't get multiple extra unarmed strikes per round just because he has an arm, two legs, and a head free. Therefore, you don't get any extra attacks just because you now have a vestigial arm, or two vestigial arms. You're still limited by the normal limitations of the attack sequence.
And no, having the wings discovery doesn't mean you automatically get an extra wing attack. Most creatures that naturally have wings don't get wing attacks; the rules for wing attacks in the Bestiary are mainly there so you know if wings are primary or secondary, and how much damage they should do if you're building your own monster. If, for example, your alchemist wanted to attack with a wing *instead* of an unarmed strike, you'd know how it would function (secondary, bludgeoning, probably 1d4 for a Medium creature). But the wing attack wouldn't be in *addition* to the alchemist's normal attack routine, it would take the place of one of the alchemist's other attacks that round.
SKR's comment is the basis for the opposition. There is no additional melee attack. There is no additional natural attack.
If you indulge me, I'll prove to you that, from a game mechanics standpoint, you aren't gaining any additional attacks by taking Vestigial Arm.
This is going to be long post, and I'm going to break it down step by step to prove this point. First I want to provide a few definitions.
The transmuted creatures move and act more quickly than normal. This extra speed has several effects.
When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack with one natural or manufactured weapon. The attack is made using the creature's full base attack bonus, plus any modifiers appropriate to the situation. (This effect is not cumulative with similar effects, such as that provided by a speed weapon, nor does it actually grant an extra action, so you can't use it to cast a second spell or otherwise take an extra action in the round.)
The in-game precedent for an extra attack is an attack in addition to your normal attack sequence.
With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can’t strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet).
Apples
Attacks made with natural weapons, such as claws and bites, are melee attacks that can be made against any creature within your reach. These attacks are made using your full attack bonus and deal an amount of damage that depends on their type (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). You do not receive additional natural attacks for a high base attack bonus. Instead, you receive additional attack rolls for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack (as noted by the race or ability that grants the attacks).
Oranges
Simply, and mechanically, put; the number of melee attacks with a weapon, is determined by your BAB. The number of melee attacks made by natural weapons, is determined by the amount of natural weapons you have. Extra would be whatever that number is, plus something.
Going to talk about gaining natural weapons, from a mechanics point of view.
Some tieflings take on the more bestial aspects of their fiendish ancestors. These tieflings exhibit either powerful, toothy maws or dangerous claws. The tiefling can choose a bite attack that deals 1d6 points of damage or two claws that each deal 1d4 points of damage. These attacks are primary natural attacks. This racial trait replaces the spell-like ability racial trait.
This "effect" is not an attack in it of itself, nor do you "gain" an attack. The trait turns a previously non-combat entity, into a natural weapon. It assigns the weapons damage, and that's it.
Half-Orc--Toothy: Does this alternate racial trait stack with the Razortusk feat (page 168) granting you two bite attacks?
This is one of those areas where we tried to get at the same idea multiple ways. In this case, the answer is no, unless you somehow manage to get an extra mouth. Generally speaking, natural weapons can only be used once per round each. This also applies to the Animal Fury barbarian rage power (Core Rulebook, page 32).
—Jason Bulmahn, 08/13/10
The above Claw or Maw mechanic is supported by James. The MAw feature transforms a mouth (non-combat) into a natural bite weapon. This weapon is added to the list of natural weapons you have. You can take as many mouth transforming "effects" as you want, applying only the best one. This is why it is that you are prevented from "stacking" multiple bite weapon granting "effects". When you take your full attack action, you use all of your natural weapons, which is one, so you make one bite attack.
Furthermore, this is reflected in the Claws feature. You turn a hand (up to two) into a claw weapon, they get assigned weapon damage. They get added to the list of available natural weapons. You now have two claw weapons. When you take your full attack action, you use all your natural weapons, which means you receive two claw attacks. (By mechanics) One unarmed attack, can become two claw attacks.
Examples (without Vestigial Arm):
A two armed humanoid, taking two claw abilities. How many hands does the creature have? 2. Two hands are turned into natural claw weapons. How many natural weapons does the creature have? 2. Full round attack action, the total number of attack rolls is equal to the number of natural weapons.
A four armed humanoid, taking just one claw ability. How many hands does the creature have? 4. Two hands are turned into natural claw weapons. How many natural weapons does the creature have? 2. Full round attack action, the total number of attack rolls is equal to the number of natural weapons.
A four armed humanoid, taking two claw abilities. How many hands does the creature have? 4. Four hands are turned into natural claw weapons. How many natural weapons does the creature have? 4. Full round attack action, the total number of attack rolls is equal to the number of natural weapons.
A four armed humanoid, taking one claw ability, and one bite ability. How many hands does the creature have? 4. Two hands are turned into natural claw weapons. How many mouths does the creature have? 1. One mouth is turned into a natural bite weapon. How many natural weapons does the creature have? 3. Full round attack action, the total number of attack rolls is equal to the number of natural weapons.
A four armed humanoid, taking two claw abilities, and one bite ability. How many hands does the creature have? 4. Four hands are turned into natural claw weapons. How many mouths does the creature have? 1. One mouth is turned into a natural bite weapon. How many natural weapons does the creature have? 5. Full round attack action, the total number of attack rolls is equal to the number of natural weapons.
The alchemist gains a new arm (left or right) on his torso. The arm is fully under his control and cannot be concealed except with magic or bulky clothing. 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 arm can manipulate or hold items as well as the alchemist's original arms (for example, allowing the alchemist to use one hand to wield a weapon, another hand to hold a potion, and the third hand to throw a bomb). The arm has its own “hand” and “ring” magic item slots (though the alchemist can still only wear two rings and two hand magic items at a time). An alchemist may take this discovery up to two times.
Vestigial Arm, does not change this at all:
Take a two armed creature, give it two vestigial arms, and two claw abilities. How many hands does the creature have? 4. Four hands are turned into claw weapons. How many natural weapons does the creature have? 4. (Addendum: Is the arm capable of making an attack? Yes) Full round attack action, the total number of attack rolls is equal to the number of natural weapons.As above, you receive additional attack rolls for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack.
Before the Vestigial Arm, the number of attacks in a full round attack action is equal to the number of natural weapons. After Vestigial Arm, the number of attacks in a full round attack action is equal to the number of natural weapons.
Revisiting, just for a moment, Sean's quote above- The bold section. "You are limited to the normal limitations of the attack sequence." For natural weapons, that limit is all of them.
There is nothing extra.
But, the way people are tossing the word "additional" and "extra" around, they would have you believe that the moment you put a dagger in that Vestigial Arm, you suddenly lose attacks.
Attacks are never lost.
A two weapon fighting tengu alchemist without extra limbs attacks [using a combination of two weapon fighting and natural weapons] at unarmed-2 unarmed-2 claw-5 claw-5 bite 5 attacks.
A two weapon fighting tengu alchemist with extra limbs attacks and holding a dagger [using a combination of two weapon fighting and natural weapons] gets dagger -2 unarmed-2 claw-5 claw -5 bite-5 5 attacks.
You don't lose any attacks because of the dagger, you lose attacks because you stop [using a combination of two weapon fighting and natural weapons] because using two weapon fighting and natural weapons is a way to gain more attacks.
Before the Vestigial Arm, the number of attacks in a full round attack action is equal to the number of natural weapons. After Vestigial Arm, the number of attacks in a full round attack action is equal to the number of natural weapons.
.... and the number of natural weapons went up, which means that the number of attacks went up, which means vestigial arm doesn't work.
You cannot say that an increasing variable is not an increase. Its beyond "what is is" levels of contortion of the english language.
|
|
... and the number of natural weapons went up, which means that the number of attacks went up, which means vestigial arm doesn't work.
You cannot say that an increasing variable is not an increase. Its beyond "what is is" levels of contortion of the english language.
The determination for how many natural attacks are allowed in a full attack action did not change.
All of them is all of them. Vestigial Arm did not change the number of natural attacks you can make. It was all of them before, and it's still all of them after.
Vestigial Arm:
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.
Natural attack:
You do not receive additional natural attacks for a high base attack bonus. Instead, you receive additional attack rolls for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack (as noted by the race or ability that grants the attacks).
If the Vestigial Arm has a natural attack, it is capable of making an natural attack as part of the attack routine.
Therefore you are not gaining anything extra.
From a game balance perspective though, I think that the developers would rule against such interpretations.
Taking a tiefling (easy access to claws on original arms), you can get two vestigial arms by level 4, but let's say level 5 so we can get extra discovery (feral mutagen) and power attack together. Now, if we follow the interpretations presented above, that tiefling could either take Improved Unarmed Strike or maybe just grab blade boots. Let's not add TWF, since it is not technically need to make the attacks, just to make them in any way practical (and the lack of practicality makes my point all the more).
With feral mutagen, the attack sequence would be Kick/kick/bite/claw/claw without the vestigial arms. Now, again we don't NEED TWF for this, just to make it practical, which means -4 to the main hand and -8 to offhand since both are light weapons. So, before adding in BAB and strength modifiers, we have: -4 Kick/ -8 Kick/ -5 Bite/ -5 Claw/ -5 Claw. Note that all of the attacks after the first kick only get half STR and power attack damage.
Now, according the the 'extra attack' logic, we can remove those two kicks. We also do not use TWF, and all the attacks are primary since we are not including manufactured weapons. So the attack sequence, before BAB and Strength bonuses, the attack sequence is this: +0 Bite/ +0 Claw/ +0 Claw/ +0 Claw/ +0 Claw/. All of those attacks are made at full attack bonus, and deal full STR damage and power attack damage.
Do you understand how insane this build is now? At 5th level, before any other class receives an iterative, you are doing 5 attacks without any penalties. Imagine if this was with a vivisectionist that is flanking! That is 5 times Strength damage (boosted by mutagen; let's say 18+4 for this), +20 from all the power attacks, and 15d6 sneak attack (not to mention 1d8 for bite, 2d6 from the mutagen claws, and 2d4 from the racial claws). That is almost an average of 100 damage. Can anything balanced for a 5th level party survive this? Just because you can take extra attacks with kicks doesn't mean that you can substitute them for vestigial arms since it allows you to munchkin the rules into your favor insane ways.
Sure, bite/claw/claw is also powerful, but the above suggested build would decimate things throughout the entire game, while bite/claw/claw is only "ok" after early levels.
All of them is all of them. Vestigial Arm did not change the number of natural attacks you can make. It was all of them before, and it's still all of them after.
This attempt at linguistic chicanery gives rules lawyers a bad name.
Biz,
you DO get your full attack bonus on all the natural attacks. Pathfinder changed how natural attacks work from 3.5. Natural vs. seconary attack is decided by the kind of attack, not with 1 listed as primary and the rest as secondary.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From a game balance perspective though, I think that the developers would rule against such interpretations.
Does that mean that you understand the above interpretation, and agree with all points I've presented? If so, then lets FAQ this, and let the game creators decide how this should be addressed.
The difference in question is 2xStrength, 8PA, and 6D6 SA, not 5/20/15. On average, that'll be about ~40 damage, on a full attack.
At 5th level, before any other class receives an iterative, you are doing 5 attacks without any penalties.
Alchemist is a average BAB, at 5th level it has 3BAB. 3 Feats, and 2 discoveries.
1 Power Attack - Feat
2 Vest Arm - Disc
3 Extra Disc (Feral) - Feat
4 Vest Arm - Disc
5 Open
If you start with 18 strength with +4 from mutagen, your to hit is +7 (3bab, -1PA, +5str). Assuming you are flanking (to get your sneak) it's now +9.
+9 (flanking), +7 to hit (for 50 minutes a day), +5 for the rest for a 5th level character is a terrible to hit bonus. The balance you seek is in your inability to connect any of your glass cannons to a target.
This would be your penalty for such a build.
Statically, your +5 comes out to an average armor class hit of 15-16.
linguistic chicanery
This made me laugh.
I will receive your response to a well thought out post with name calling as an admission that you do not have a valid counter.Fwiw, I wasn't looking to debate you on this, the points I've made are the reason for my belief that this needs to be FAQd.
If you have nothing else to add, could I request that you FAQ this, and we see if we can get a response.
I will receive your response to a well thought out post with name calling as an admission that you do not have a valid counter
The counter was already given.
"All of them" is not a number. If "all of them" is 4 and then "all of them" is 5 then there was an increase from 4 to 5. If you don't want someone to call it blatant chicanery and word play hide it better.
"All of them" is not a number. If "all of them" is 4 and then "all of them" is 5 then there was an increase from 4 to 5. If you don't want someone to call it blatant chicanery and word play hide it better.What part of VA made all of them 5?
If VA doesn't increase it, then why are you taking it?
Take the 2 vestigal arms out of the equation and how many attacks and HOW can u getvthose attacks. Skr specifically stated the additional meant extra attacks that u are gaining from the arms. If u cannot do the attack sequence without the arms (aka dagger dagger claw claw bite) then u cannot do that. (Unarmed strike unarmed strike claw claw bite ) is legal because u are not relying on the arms to fulfill the equation.
Just because in total u can do 5 attacks doesn't mean that u can do all different types of 5 attacks. Sometimes u can only do less
Part of me thinks that this is a clever setup, as they are all natural attacks, and thus you won't be of much use against the inevitable DR your GM will throw at you (good luck enchanting your claws).
Eldritch Claws, Amulet of Mighty Fists, (Greater) Magic Fang, etc. It's not too difficult.
|
|
If VA doesn't increase it, then why are you taking it?
You're dodging the question. I've presented to you how VA doesn't grant extra attacks.
The onus is on you to either accept what has been presented, or counter it with discussion topic.
Simply stating that 4 > 5, thereby making it extra, could be perceived as you stating: Because of the English definition of extra, I am right, and your mechanics, and in game conclusion is wrong.
That opinion is what the rules lawyers share.
linguistic chicaneryThis made me laugh.
I will receive your response to a well thought out post with name calling as an admission that you do not have a valid counter.Fwiw, I wasn't looking to debate you on this, the points I've made are the reason for my belief that this needs to be FAQd.
If you have nothing else to add, could I request that you FAQ this, and we see if we can get a response.
Frankly, the logic doesn't make much sense. That's why there wasn't a lengthy reply.
For instance:
you receive additional attack rolls for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack.
***
There is nothing extra.
Those two sentences contradict each other. "Additional" quite literally means "extra". You are using the limbs granted by Vestigial Arms to grant you "additional" natural attacks. That, unequivocally, means you are getting something extra.
Do you have an "additional" natural attack after benefiting from Vestigial Arms once and making it a claw attack? Yes. You therefore have an "extra" attack. Quite literally. BNW called it linguistic chicanery because you're trying to explain that additional attack rolls from new limbs are somehow different than extra attacks.
Before the Vestigial Arm, the number of attacks in a full round attack action is equal to the number of natural weapons. After Vestigial Arm, the number of attacks in a full round attack action is equal to the number of natural weapons.
Revisiting, just for a moment, Sean's quote above- The bold section. "You are limited to the normal limitations of the attack sequence." For natural weapons, that limit is all of them.
Your proof is premised on the point that "all of them" is not more than "all of them". But you're ignoring that "all of them" in once instance is comprised of a larger number than the other. You're using "all of them" as a variable place holder to essentially divide by zero, because saying "all of them" allows you to ignore the actual concrete numbers that disprove your point. No matter how many times you say "all of them", in one instance "all of them" equals 2 claw attacks and in the other "all of them" equals 4 claw attacks. 4 claw attacks is more than 2 claw attacks, no matter how you slice it. To be precise, it is 2 "additional" claw attacks. That, as we've already established, is the same thing as having two "extra" ones.
You basically did the linguistic equivalent of the 1=2 proof.
If VA doesn't increase it, then why are you taking it?You're dodging the question. I've presented to you how VA doesn't grant extra attacks.
The onus is on you to either accept what has been presented, or counter it with discussion topic.
Simply stating that 4 > 5, thereby making it extra, could be perceived as you stating: Because of the English definition of extra, I am right, and your mechanics, and in game conclusion is wrong.
That opinion is what the rules lawyers share.
No, what you attempted to prove is that additional and extra don't mean the same thing. They do. 5 is more than 4. That's precisely why it is extra.
If VA doesn't increase it, then why are you taking it?You're dodging the question. I've presented to you how VA doesn't grant extra attacks.
The onus is on you to either accept what has been presented, or counter it with discussion topic.
That was done, as the shamrock pointed out.
If VA doesn't increase it, then why are you taking it?You're dodging the question. I've presented to you how VA doesn't grant extra attacks.
The onus is on you to either accept what has been presented, or counter it with discussion topic.
That was done, as the shamrock pointed out.
That was done, as the shamrock pointed out.
as the shamrock pointed out.
the shamrock.
... I HAVE A NEW NICKNAME!
Great success!
"The shamrock" was using English definitions of words to dispute in-game mechanics.
I'm sorry, but I imagine there are plenty of people with opinions against people who start an argument with "According to the dictionary...".
If that's all you have to offer, then I agree to disagree with you.
Ha! Ok.
Even in-game mechanics require a uniform understanding of the necessary language. Seriously, your argument amounts to "additional" is not the same thing as "extra". Your argument is "all of them (4)" is no more than "all of them (2)".
This isn't definitional semantics (on my part, anyway). You're using faulty logic. You made a long post, but your proof amounts to hand-waving that 4 is more than 2, because they're just natural attacks and you can always make "all of them".
Everybody recognizes that Vestigial Arms do not allow you to make 4 manufactured weapon attacks, because those would be "extra". But some how there's a question as to whether they allow you to make 4 natural weapon attacks? Because 4 natural attacks is simply providing you with 2 "additional" limbs to make more claw attacks, not "extra" ones.
Let A=1, B=1
1=1
A=B
A*B = B*B
A*B - A*A = B*B - A*A
A(B-A) = (B+A)(B-A)
A = B+A
1 = 2
EDIT: Ultimately, the primary flaw in your argument comes when you compare a four-armed humanoid to a two-armed humanoid who gets two more due to Vestigial Arms. You claim that Vestigial Arm changes nothing. That is incorrect. A humanoid who naturally has four arms has no limitation place on the use of those two other arms. A humanoid who gains extra arms via Vestigial Arms does, specifically that the Vestigial Arms do not allow for extra attacks. That's a pretty important difference between the two scenarios you're trying to liken. And, it's fatal to your claim. To be short, your analogy is not apt.
I don't think you can use Vestigial Arms to get two extra arms and therefore get two natural attacks and two manufactured weapon attacks. So I disagree with your premise that there's no issue with dagger/dagger/claw/claw/bite. That, in my opinion, is precisely getting extra attacks out of Vestigial Arms.
Also, I'd still like someone to explain this one to me.
We have, ad nauseum, over the course of several threads.
I looked at the other thread you linked. Looked at the other thread linked in that one. I fail to see how dagger/dagger/claw/claw/bite is permissible with Vestigial Arms.
Ultimately, the proof to it begs the question.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You needn't look further than this thread, actually.
And, for whatever's sake, stop calling them extra attacks. Neither side is advocating this. You cannot get extra attacks with Vestigial Arms, and we are all aware of this, so you repeating the same mantra over and over again is tiresome and getting us nowhere.
|
|
Ha! Ok.
<<I'm not using semantics, you are!!>>
Link some sources. If you wish to press on, then lets have a discussion based on the rules in this game. Leave the dictionary/thesaurus/math book out of your discussion.
I've shown the source of additional natural weapons. It's not Vestigial Arms.
I've shown in-game definitions of the word "extra". It's not what I am presenting that Vestigial Arms does.
EDIT: Ultimately, the primary flaw in your argument comes when you compare a four-armed humanoid to a two-armed humanoid who gets two more due to Vestigial Arms. You claim that Vestigial Arm changes nothing. That is incorrect. A humanoid who naturally has four arms has no limitation place on the use of those two other arms. A humanoid who gains extra arms via Vestigial Arms does, specifically that the Vestigial Arms do not allow for extra attacks. That's a pretty important difference between the two scenarios you're trying to liken. And, it's fatal to your claim. To be short, your analogy is not apt.
A typical four armed humanoid can not take four natural attacks. The flaw you think you've found is because you've digressed to an apples v. oranges argument.
With regards to natural attacks, you can only take as many natural attacks as you have natural weapons. The number of arms you have is irrelevant. A Marlith cannot make 6 claw attacks.
Without an external "effect" granting you a natural attack weapon, the number of natural attacks you can take is 0.
Ultimately, it boils down to this: Please allow people to have different opinions than yourself.
I've requested we not argue this point. It's been proven in-game, with in-game mechanical backing. I entertained the replied rhetoric in linguistics. The converse side (the opposition) was summarized fairly. It's even been offered to agree to disagree with those who feel that this presentation is not how you would read the rules.
The points where you attempt to pick apart the logic drag us back full circle to points that have already been brought up.
You needn't look further than this thread, actually.
And, for whatever's sake, stop calling them extra attacks. Neither side is advocating this. You cannot get extra attacks with Vestigial Arms, and we are all aware of this, so you repeating the same mantra over and over again is tiresome and getting us nowhere.
No, see that's the point. Your position is that they are not extra attacks. My position is that they are extra attacks. You can't simply say "They're not extra attacks, so stop calling them that!" You're begging the question.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, see that's the point. Your position is that they are not extra attacks. My position is that they are extra attacks. You can't simply say "They're not extra attacks, so stop calling them that!" You're begging the question.
I have yet to see where you use in-game mechanics, and ruling to show why you believe they are "extra". The only counter to this that you've presented, is the dictionary.
Ha! Ok.
<<I'm not using semantics, you are!!>>
I wonder if you believe that the nuances of language, and math are valid arguments. Link some sources. Lets have a discussion based on the rules in this game. Leave the dictionary/thesaurus/math book out of your discussion.
I've shown the source of additional natural weapons. It's not Vestigial Arms.
I've shown in-game definitions of the word "extra". It's not what I am presenting that Vestigial Arms does.EDIT: Ultimately, the primary flaw in your argument comes when you compare a four-armed humanoid to a two-armed humanoid who gets two more due to Vestigial Arms. You claim that Vestigial Arm changes nothing. That is incorrect. A humanoid who naturally has four arms has no limitation place on the use of those two other arms. A humanoid who gains extra arms via Vestigial Arms does, specifically that the Vestigial Arms do not allow for extra attacks. That's a pretty important difference between the two scenarios you're trying to liken. And, it's fatal to your claim. To be short, your analogy is not apt.A typical four armed humanoid can not take four natural attacks. The flaw you think you've found is because you've digressed to an apples v. oranges argument.
With regards to natural attacks, you can only take as many natural attacks as you have natural weapons. The number of arms you have is irrelevant. A Marlith cannot make 6 claw attacks.
Without an external "effect" granting you a natural attack weapon, the number of natural attacks you can take is 0.
Trolololol!
I'm resorting to mere semantics? Your argument depends upon the "extra" attack being ok because it comes from the "claws", not the "limb". And then begging the question beyond that.
Natural four-armed humanoid with claws on all four hands is not the same as a two-armed humanoid with two extra arms from Vestigial Arms with claws on all four appendages. That's the question you're skipping over. You handwave it.
And the thing is, I'm not countering your argument with semantics. I'm telling you your logic is faulty. Because it is. You're presuming that the natural attacks from the Vestigial Arms fall under the umbrella of "normal attack sequence". You have to actually support that somehow. You can't simply say "You can always make all your natural attacks" and say the "extra attack" language doesn't apply. You have to demonstrate why the "extra attack" language is not applicable to even these natural weapons. And yes, the onus is on you for this because the clear reading of the rule and all developer comment thus far points exactly in the opposite direction of your conclusion. Likening the attacks to a four-armed (with claws) humanoid, the rules entry for which wouldn't include limiting language regarding extra attacks made with the 3rd and 4th arms does not help make your point, because the circumstances are not analogous.
People are certainly allowed to have different opinions than me. That's a snide way to cut off discussion. You're allowed to have different opinions. I'm allowed to undercut what I view to be a poorly supported opinion. I'm criticizing your logic. I'm allowed to do that.
No, see that's the point. Your position is that they are not extra attacks. My position is that they are extra attacks. You can't simply say "They're not extra attacks, so stop calling them that!" You're begging the question.They have been proven to not be extra. It's not a position.
You're reasoning for why they are, is according to the dictionary.
That is the claim you are making, yes. You have failed to prove as of yet why attacks made using your regular limbs and your natural limbs fall under the "normal attack sequence" despite the explicit language from the Vestigial Arms entry and developer comments that say you cannot use the vestigial arms to make attacks beyond what you can make were you not in possession of said arms. That's the point. You "proved it" with a poor analogy. Four arms with Vestigial Arms is not like a natural Four-armed humanoid (with claws).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And the thing is, I'm not countering your argument with semantics. I'm telling you your logic is faulty. Because it is. You're presuming that the natural attacks from the Vestigial Arms fall under the umbrella of "normal attack sequence". You have to actually support that somehow. You can't simply say "You can always make all your natural attacks" and say the "extra attack" language doesn't apply. You have to demonstrate why the "extra attack" language is not applicable to even these natural weapons. And yes, the onus is on you for this because the clear reading of the rule and all developer comment thus far points exactly in the opposite direction of your conclusion. Likening the attacks to a four-armed (with claws) humanoid, the rules entry for which wouldn't include limiting language regarding extra attacks made with the 3rd and 4th arms does not help make your point, because the circumstances are not analogous.
Show me where I said that Vestigial Arm grants you an additional natural weapon?
No, see that's the point. Your position is that they are not extra attacks. My position is that they are extra attacks. You can't simply say "They're not extra attacks, so stop calling them that!" You're begging the question.I have yet to see where you use in-game mechanics, and ruling to show why you believe they are "extra". The only counter to this that you've presented, is the dictionary.
In-Game Mechanics? Like the entry for Vestigial Arms that says no extra attacks? Why do you think the intent of the developers is to ban the use of four daggers with vestigial arms, but not four claws?
And the thing is, I'm not countering your argument with semantics. I'm telling you your logic is faulty. Because it is. You're presuming that the natural attacks from the Vestigial Arms fall under the umbrella of "normal attack sequence". You have to actually support that somehow. You can't simply say "You can always make all your natural attacks" and say the "extra attack" language doesn't apply. You have to demonstrate why the "extra attack" language is not applicable to even these natural weapons. And yes, the onus is on you for this because the clear reading of the rule and all developer comment thus far points exactly in the opposite direction of your conclusion. Likening the attacks to a four-armed (with claws) humanoid, the rules entry for which wouldn't include limiting language regarding extra attacks made with the 3rd and 4th arms does not help make your point, because the circumstances are not analogous.Show me where I said that Vestigial Arm grants you an additional natural weapon?
And this is where the argument turns into: You don't get the extra attack from the vestigial arm, you get it from the claw.
And yet you're criticizing me for being hyper semantic ...
Also, you did say: Before the Vestigial Arm, the number of attacks in a full round attack action is equal to the number of natural weapons. After Vestigial Arm, the number of attacks in a full round attack action is equal to the number of natural weapons.
Certainly sounds like you're implying the Vestigial Arm is what gets you that additional natural weapon. Not extra though, because that's different than additional. Apparently.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...al attack sequence" despite the explicit language from the Vestigial Arms entry and developer comments that say you cannot use the vestigial arms to make attacks beyond what you can make were you not in possession of said arms.
Where in any of the FAQ, or source material is this said? That is your interpretation of what those two sources state.
|
|
And this is where the argument turns into: You don't get the extra attack from the vestigial arm, you get it from the claw.
The claw ability does not grant you an attack. I pointed this out in my long post.
Also, you did say: Before the Vestigial Arm, the number of attacks in a full round attack action is equal to the number of natural weapons. After Vestigial Arm, the number of attacks in a full round attack action is equal to the number of natural weapons.
Certainly sounds like you're implying the Vestigial Arm is what gets you that additional natural weapon. Not extra though, because that's different than additional. Apparently.
The bold words are the exact same words. There's no implication that Vestigial Arm grants you anything.
You needn't look further than this thread, actually.
And, for whatever's sake, stop calling them extra attacks. Neither side is advocating this.
Yes, you are.
You're calling them something else, but that is in fact what they are.
And this is where the argument turns into: You don't get the extra attack from the vestigial arm, you get it from the claw.The claw ability does not grant you an attack. I pointed this out in my long post.
So...it's not the arm, and it's not the claw granting more attacks...so what is it?
And this is where the argument turns into: You don't get the extra attack from the vestigial arm, you get it from the claw.The claw ability does not grant you an attack. I pointed this out in my long post.
the claw doesn't grant you the extra attack because that would be silly.
the vestigial arm doesn't grant you the extra attack because that would be a rules violation for vestigial arm.
Vestigial arm is the Dick Cheney of abilities!