Vestigial Arm(s) and Natural Attacks


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 176 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
The Exchange

20 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Question unclear. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hello.

I've searched the forums on this topic, and I see there are many, many posts. I don't see a definitive agreement, nor a paizo developer addresing specifically if vestigial arms and multiple sources for claw attacks work together or not. (There are several threads where developers have addresssed specific points on either side, but nothing about that)

Quick recap:
There are several abilities (using the developer FAQ lingo) that grant you access to a "2 claw attack" (Tengu, Tiefling, Ranger, Barbarian, Alchemist, etc...). The alchemist discovery Vestigial Arm grants you additional arms. If you take two different "2 claw attack" abilities and two vestigial arms, do they equal 4 claw natural attacks.

Summary:

FAQ - Jason Bulmahn wrote:

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

Unless you get a second mouth, the access to the ability does not stack. Inferring that if you do have a second mouth, they would stack.

Furthermore, there is a current in-game, president of this mechanic working that is not subject to debate. A summoner can take an Eidelon and give it 4 arms with 4 claw attacks (2x1-point Claw evolutions and a 2-point Limbs evolution). (4 total evolutions)

Limbs Evolution wrote:
Limbs (Ex): An eidolon grows an additional pair of limbs. These limbs can take one of two forms. They can be made into legs, complete with feet. Each pair of legs increases the eidolon's base speed by 10 feet. Alternatively, they can be made into arms, complete with hands. The eidolon does not gain any additional natural attacks for an additional pair of arms, but it can take other evolutions that add additional attacks (such as claws or a slam). Arms that have hands can be used to wield weapons, if the eidolon is proficient. This evolution can be selected more than once.

There several posts where the developers have said, that if an ability grants you the same ability, but called something else, it's still the same. (Positive Energy Channel, Bonuses from Dex - Fury's Fall, etc...) In this case, Vestigial Arm, and Limbs grant you extra arms. To borrow John's lingo, they are the same idea, in multiple ways. They both say that the "wearer" gains additional limbs, that grant no additional attacks. They should be treated the same.

Where Limbs deviates, is that it goes on to state that they can have attacks if the other evolutions are taken.

One side of the debate says that this lack of additional wordage in the Vestigial Arms discovery is why it doesn't add up to 4 (effects must say they grant X for X to be legal). Others say that it's not needed to specifically state that as, paraphrasing John, unless you have access to a second set of arms, they do not stack. Many feel the RAW supports both sides of the debate.

However, without that specific text in the discovery, it remains the subject for great debate. Can we avoid letting this thread devolve into a re-hash of all the other threads questioning the same thing. Simply, please FAQ request this. If a table could have a ruling go either way depending on how the GM interprets RAW, I believe a FAQ would be required to allow uniform play.

It clearly has been asked many, many times, with valid points on either side. I think I've fairly represented both sides.

The Exchange

I figured with all the posts on this forum about this, that there'd be a more interest in having a FAQ about this topic. o_O

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

That's the problem. There's something like half a dozen of these right now, and people are exhausted.


I agree that this is a frequently asked question.

I also agree that this was well presented. Well done!


Can we really count eidolon rules as examples though? There are already certain shifts from the standard PC rules and the eidolon rules that has been commented on officially in this part of the forums.

I am of course referring to the claws evolution going on the feat for eidolons, but other Bipeds generally receive talons for the feet. i believe Cheapy is far more experienced with such threads and the appropriate official responses than I.

While I understand your use of the evolution to examine the general structure of the rule language, I still somewhat question the validity of this example.

But for my two bits on the actual debate itself, I find that the fact that you can't just put daggers into a vestigial hand and your other hands and then flail around around with all three of them as evidence against their ability to make attacks, or at least to coordinate more than usual.

I would be perfectly comfortable with someone placing the claws from a feral mutagen onto the vestigial limbs and pull a Doc Ock...because this is fantasy and having large clawed limbs growing from your back (preferably robotic and/or insect like) is awesome. But their regular arms could not be used to attack while doing this. If one had to give a flavor reason for this, I would turn towards the highly experimental nature of alchemy, and the fact that just because you grow additional arms doesn't mean you built your brain around using them properly. That would be more of a "finished product" type deal than "experimental".

So to summarize, I am perfectly fine with placing a natural "weapon" onto the vestigial arms, but I disagree that the feral mutagen would provide an additional natural "attack" when the vestigial limbs are involved.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That is a good point. The eidolon rules shouldn't really be used as precedent for PC stuff. The eidolon breaks the rules in quite a few places (claws, grab, constrict, etc).


The Devs obviously think it’s clear, which is why they haven’t answered. It’s also clear to me: “The arm does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round..” Now, yes, if you have TWF a vestigial arm can wield one of the two weapons.

What seems to be sticking is the ‘extra” in ‘extra attacks” to me this is also clear; you get the same number of attacks with vestigial arms as you do without. Have TWF and get two attacks? You get two attacks with TWF and Vestigial arms. Get two claw attacks? Add vestigial arms and you get- two attacks. But they can be two claws or two weapons. Still TWO. A Monk flurries with 5 attacks? Flurry with vestigial arms= still 5 attacks. The Eidolon rules are a special exception. But so are vestigial arms- specific trumps general and for vestigial "The arm does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round...”

But just to make the OP happy, and hopefully make this the last thread, I clicked FAQ.


DrDeth wrote:

The Devs obviously think it’s clear, which is why they haven’t answered. It’s also clear to me: “The arm does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round..” Now, yes, if you have TWF a vestigial arm can wield one of the two weapons.

What seems to be sticking is the ‘extra” in ‘extra attacks” to me this is also clear; you get the same number of attacks with vestigial arms as you do without. Have TWF and get two attacks? You get two attacks with TWF and Vestigial arms. Get two claw attacks? Add vestigial arms and you get- two attacks. But they can be two claws or two weapons. Still TWO. A Monk flurries with 5 attacks? Flurry with vestigial arms= still 5 attacks. The Eidolon rules are a special exception. But so are vestigial arms- specific trumps general and for vestigial "The arm does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round...”

But just to make the OP happy, and hopefully make this the last thread, I clicked FAQ.

This is how I see it.

PRD wrote:
Vestigial Arm (Ex): ... 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 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).

I think the bolded sentences show that intent fairly clearly. You have extra appendages, but they do not increase the number of actions or attacks you can make. Nor are they to be used to increase the number of magic items you can typically utilize. While the second limitation isn't in contest here, the concept behind it is the same - having extra arms can be very useful, but they are not intended to circumvent the ordinary restrictions placed on other PCs.

So, you conceivably could have four arms, each with claws. But, in any given turn only two of them could make attacks. By the same token, you could not use two of the arms to make claw attacks and use the other two arms to make manufactured weapon attacks.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

SKR is a developer.

SKR has answered this question

His answer is no.

Any combination where you need a vestigial limb to add another attack is by definition an extra attack.

NO already.

Not in a box
not with a fox
not in a house
not with a mouse.

The Exchange

BigNorseWolf wrote:

SKR is a developer.

SKR has answered this question

His answer is no.

<condescending rhetoric removed>

I saw that post, and I completely agree with him. He says having the discovery, doesn't grant you extra attacks. This post is one of the several where I initially mentioned that developers have commented on points, but not on the main issue. Furthermore, the context of this comment, people in the thread were saying you can make a sword attack, and then a natural attack because you have a Vestigial Arm. He clarified the already worded discovery to state that just having an arm does not grant you an additional attack.

Like in my example above, the subsequent taking of a second grant "2 claw attacks" ability, is what would be granting additional attacks, and that question he did not answer.

I challenge you to avoid turning this thread into one of the many VA/Claw posts out there, I've seen them, and read them. I don't believe it's possible to add anything new to the argument that hasn't been already said (in one of the threads I linked).

Did SKR say that Claws, VA, and Claws doesn't grant you 4 Claw attacks? Can we both agree that he did not?

That's the main reason for this FAQ request thread, if you can agree to that, then click FAQ.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dash Lestowe wrote:
Like in my example above, the subsequent taking of a second grant "2 claw attacks" ability, is what would be granting additional attacks, and that question he did not answer.

The abilities you listed do not grant extra claw attacks. They grant you claws that replace your already existing attacks (a pair of unarmed strikes for your standard issue human). They do not grant you "claw attacks" they grant you "Claws". A tengu draconic sorcerer doesn't suddenly grow claws out of another part of their body- thats why you need the arms, and thats why it doesn't work: because if you need the arms and something else to make an additional attack then you need the arms to make the additional attack: which they don't do.

Quote:
I challenge you to avoid turning this thread into one of the many VA/Claw posts out there, I've seen them

That challenge is yours. You are, by all appearances, making the exact same argument that has been proposed many times in favor of getting more attacks which subsequently leads to the exact same answer: no.

The Exchange

BigNorseWolf wrote:
That challenge is yours. You are, by all appearances, making the exact same argument that has been proposed many times in favor of getting more attacks which subsequently leads to the exact same answer: no.

Fair enough. I've read what you wrote, and thank you for the input. As mentioned in the OP, there are valid points on both sides.

Moving forward, this thread is a simple, and clearly laid out opportunity for a FAQ where they can say these combinations of effects work together, or not.


I guess I'm confused as to what the argument for allowing 4 claw attacks is. Is it the "unless you have a second mouth" offhand comment in the other FAQ? Because even if that were the case, it seems to be pretty directly countered by the direct language in the Vestigial Arm entry that says "no extra attacks".

So I guess if you could explain the argument a little better, it would be helpful.


James Jacobs Creative Director Aug 21, 2012, 12:38 PM | Flag | List Post #21219 in ">>Ask *James Jacobs* ALL your Questions Here!<<"
Add to:
New List

Comment:
Add to List

| Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----

You and 5 others marked this as a favorite. –

DrDeth wrote:
I apologize oh Dread Great Tyrant Lizard if these have been asked before but just to clarify:

3. Even combined with Multiweapon fighting, a Vivisectionist with Vestigial Arm still does not get extra attacks with those arms?"

3) Nope.

The Exchange

fretgod99 wrote:
So I guess if you could explain the argument a little better, it would be helpful.

Please refer to any of the posts linked in the OP. The summary section in the OP offers only a high level overview.

If there's a specific question you have, try asking it here. It's a recent post where people are discussing the issue. It may even contain the clarity you seek.

DrDeath, I don't see any mention of claw attacks, perhaps you overlooked that? Seems similar, but not an apples to apples comparison.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

That's the thing, they're not "extra".


Nefreet wrote:
That's the thing, they're not "extra".

They are extra, because you're comparing apples and oranges.

Apples in this case being with two weapon fighting and using the natural attacks as the offhand weapons, and oranges being without using the natural attacks as the offhand weapons.


This clearly looks like extra attacks. You cannot make the extra claw attacks without the extra arms. How can you look at this as not getting extra attacks from the arms.

Look at it this way: if you had the two bite attacks mentioned in the OP, then you took a discovery that gave you an extra mouth but the discovery said you did not get an extra attack, would you still think you got two bite attacks?

If the discovery was only meant to prevent extra off hand attacks, why not just say no extra off hand attacks? There were already several ways to get claw attacks when the discovery was written. Why not say no extra attacks, except natural attacks?

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I don't think either of you read my link, so I'll post it here:

Nefreet wrote:

A 1st level Tengu Monk (as an example) has two arms, each ending in claws. As his 1st level feat, he grabs two-weapon fighting. This character can, at 1st level, perform an unarmed strike/strike/claw/claw/bite as a full attack action. The attack penalties would be -2/-2/-5/-5/-5. This is totally legal, and nobody disputes this.

By 3rd level that same Tengu has taken two levels of Alchemist, and has taken the Vestigial Arms discovery twice (once as his 3rd level feat, once as his actual discovery), and now has four arms. Two end in claws, and two don't.

This same alchemist can perform a dagger/dagger/claw/claw/bite as a full attack. The penalties are the same: -2/-2/-5/-5/-5.

Apples-to-apples so far. The only possible apples-to-oranges comparison comes when more claws are added to the mix:

Nefreet wrote:
The tricky part comes at level 5, and I think this is where people start getting uppity. For either his 5th level feat, or his 4th level Discovery, that same Tengu can take Feral Mutagen. Now he has 4 arms, each ending in claws. If he does a full attack, he has zero attack penalties, because they are all primary natural attacks.

The sudden removal of attack penalties is what makes people squeemish, but nobody has a problem with the -2/-2/-5/-5/-5 routine.

So, how can we remedy this?

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Notice how the Alchemist is not gaining any "extra" attacks with his arms. He is performing the same 5 attacks he could do without them. I feel that's important to note, since people (even I, at one time) get hung up on it.


Nefreet wrote:

I don't think either of you read my link, so I'll post it here:

Nefreet wrote:

A 1st level Tengu Monk (as an example) has two arms, each ending in claws. As his 1st level feat, he grabs two-weapon fighting. This character can, at 1st level, perform an unarmed strike/strike/claw/claw/bite as a full attack action. The attack penalties would be -2/-2/-5/-5/-5. This is totally legal, and nobody disputes this.

By 3rd level that same Tengu has taken two levels of Alchemist, and has taken the Vestigial Arms discovery twice (once as his 3rd level feat, once as his actual discovery), and now has four arms. Two end in claws, and two don't.

This same alchemist can perform a dagger/dagger/claw/claw/bite as a full attack. The penalties are the same: -2/-2/-5/-5/-5.

Apples-to-apples so far. The only possible apples-to-oranges comparison comes when more claws are added to the mix:

Nefreet wrote:
The tricky part comes at level 5, and I think this is where people start getting uppity. For either his 5th level feat, or his 4th level Discovery, that same Tengu can take Feral Mutagen. Now he has 4 arms, each ending in claws. If he does a full attack, he has zero attack penalties, because they are all primary natural attacks.

The sudden removal of attack penalties is what makes people squeemish, but nobody has a problem with the -2/-2/-5/-5/-5 routine.

So, how can we remedy this?

well, the developers have mentioned a distaste for using the legs for unarmed strikes while you use claws anyway. Something along the lines of having the attacks "conveniently" on another limb.

What I feat with that example though is that we are going to end up dredging up every single argument anyone has had about natural attacks with this. We already have a lot of the elements floating around here. Next we are going to start seeing Catfolk barbarians (why was it always catfolk barbarians?)


Nefreet wrote:

I don't think either of you read my link, so I'll post it here:

Nefreet wrote:

A 1st level Tengu Monk (as an example) has two arms, each ending in claws. As his 1st level feat, he grabs two-weapon fighting. This character can, at 1st level, perform an unarmed strike/strike/claw/claw/bite as a full attack action. The attack penalties would be -2/-2/-5/-5/-5. This is totally legal, and nobody disputes this.

By 3rd level that same Tengu has taken two levels of Alchemist, and has taken the Vestigial Arms discovery twice (once as his 3rd level feat, once as his actual discovery), and now has four arms. Two end in claws, and two don't.

This same alchemist can perform a dagger/dagger/claw/claw/bite as a full attack. The penalties are the same: -2/-2/-5/-5/-5.

Apples-to-apples so far. The only possible apples-to-oranges comparison comes when more claws are added to the mix:

Nefreet wrote:
The tricky part comes at level 5, and I think this is where people start getting uppity. For either his 5th level feat, or his 4th level Discovery, that same Tengu can take Feral Mutagen. Now he has 4 arms, each ending in claws. If he does a full attack, he has zero attack penalties, because they are all primary natural attacks.

The sudden removal of attack penalties is what makes people squeemish, but nobody has a problem with the -2/-2/-5/-5/-5 routine.

So, how can we remedy this?

While I disagree with your interpretation, I can see how you could justify making claw attacks and weapon attacks as not being extra; but clearly, in the case of all natural attacks, it is the extra arms giving you the extra attacks.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Believe me, that's how I used to feel. My logic was that you couldn't do anything that a two-armed character couldn't do. But, in actuality, two-armed characters can do a lot.


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.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

It's 5 attacks. How is 5 > 5?


The kicks used in those unarmed strikes were more intended for flavor purposes and maybe for use when you hand are full (reach users love them), and not to provide you with another pair of attacks in your build built around throwing tons of attacks as soon as possible. That is when your 5 is more than the intended 5.

So from the designer's perspective, it is actually 2 or 3 (bite can be thrown in with either claws or unarmed strikes) rather than 5, and as such you can't just throw in the vestigial arms. I mean, in your example you could just as easily argue for 7 by keeping the kicks in since your removal of the kicks was completely arbitrary. You are arguing that someone just takes unarmed strike and TWF and that makes them able to use claws on their surgically implanted arms.

In the end, the idea might be that you can only have 2 arms in use at once. Give me a build that exceeds that with the original body design (so no synthesists or polymorph) and then we will be more receptive to this argument.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It was read. It was answered.

Apple: with the combination of two weapon fighting AND using natural attacks to reach a total of five attacks. From your own post

-2/-2/-5/-5/-5. This is totally legal, and nobody disputes this.
1 2 3 4 5 attacks when mixing two weapon fighting and natural attacks

Orange: WITHOUT the combination of two weapon fighting AND using natural attacks you have claw claw bite vestigial claw vestigial claw.

If you do an oranges to oranges comparison you have claw claw bite vs claw claw claw claw bite. when not using two weapon fighting and natural attacks

You have to compare the same method used to reach those attacks. The tengu alchemist didn't forget how to attack, he stopped mixing up his attack routines.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

So, BNW, you agree that a four-armed character could do dagger/dagger/claw/claw/bite?


Nefreet wrote:
So, BNW, you agree that a four-armed character could do dagger/dagger/claw/claw/bite?

No.

And you need to realize that your post can be read without coming to that conclusion.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
lemeres wrote:
I mean, in your example you could just as easily argue for 7 by keeping the kicks in since your removal of the kicks was completely arbitrary.

7 > 5.

It's not arbitrary. It's written in the rules. Doing a strike/strike/claw(x4)/bite would be getting "extra" attacks.

It cannot go higher than five because that is the number of attacks that a two-armed character could perform.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:

You have to compare the same method used to reach those attacks.

I don't read that written anywhere. The only limitation is that you not get "extra" attacks.

5 = 5.


Nefreet wrote:
lemeres wrote:
I mean, in your example you could just as easily argue for 7 by keeping the kicks in since your removal of the kicks was completely arbitrary.

7 > 5.

It's not arbitrary. It's written in the rules. Doing a strike/strike/claw(x4)/bite would be getting "extra" attacks.

It cannot go higher than five because that is the number of attacks that a two-armed character could perform.

There are many ways of adding extra attacks. Two weapon fighting, mixing in natural attacks, haste, weapons of speed, blessing of fervor, telekenetic charge etc.

To figure out if the arms are granting extra attacks keep all other factors equal and then count attacks. You've changed the factors by switching the natural attacks from primary to secondary. Put them back to primary and you're back to 5>3.


Nefreet wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

You have to compare the same method used to reach those attacks.

I don't read that written anywhere. The only limitation is that you not get "extra" attacks.

5 = 5.

That's what extra means.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

And these are the two schools of thought.

I argued vehemently for your side for the last year, but now I believe the evidence (and math) supports this argument more strongly.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The rules are clear, you *can* get four claw attacks, but there is still a large group who misinterprets it because of the "does not grant extra attacks" clause (which is there to reduce confusion by beginners who believe extra arms inherently add iterative attacks, but unfortunately adds confusion by people who think it applies to areas it doesn't). The argument will never die until Paizo FAQs it. This gets asked once a week, and will keep doing so until they answer it.

(Of course, when they do FAQ it, they will probably change it. As it stands, it works - once they update it, I'm sure it won't. They're pretty clear on their stance against getting extra attacks from any source.)


Nefreet wrote:

And these are the two schools of thought.

I argued vehemently for your side for the last year, but now I believe the evidence (and math) supports this argument more strongly.

Without using your natural weapons as offhand attacks you have Claw claw bite vs Claw claw vestigial claw vestigial claw bite: 3 vs 5: clearly extra.

Using your natural weapons as offhand attacks is a way of getting more attacks. Using the same attack modes you have Claw claw bite kick kick vs. Kick-2 kick-2 claw claw vestigial claw vestigial claw bite 5 vs7 attacks

You cannot compare something something in the first category with in the second category any more than you can compare hasted vs unhasted attacks to declare them "extra". The rules ARE clear: no. You cannot use the vestigial arm to get more attacks. If you need to buy the arm to get the attack it doesn't work. The arm is for holding potions, not offense.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

You're the one breaking them up into categories.

I'm arguing 5 = 5.


Nefreet wrote:

You're the one breaking them up into categories.

I'm arguing 5 = 5.

5 oranges doesn't equal 5 apples. Thats why I'm telling you to keep the categories the same THEN count.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Actually, there's even another aspect of this we haven't mentioned.

How did your alchemist get that extra set of claws? A feat? Feral Mutagen?

People argue that whatever added the claws to your Vestigial Arms is what adds the claw attacks, and not the arms themselves.

So, I kindly ask you to go back to using apples yourself.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Do either of you honestly have even the tiniest shred of hope you will convince anyone with this argument? Everybody has come up with an opinion.

Rather than arguing, click FAQ. This will never ever be resolved with debate. Word of God is the only thing that can end this.


The Morphling wrote:

Do either of you honestly have even the tiniest shred of hope you will convince anyone with this argument? Everybody has come up with an opinion.

Rather than arguing, click FAQ. This will never ever be resolved with debate. Word of God is the only thing that can end this.

Optimist.

When someone wants to add more power to their character, nothing will convince them otherwise. THEIR argument is always different. But their character is always different. But the circumstances aren't quite the same, but its under a full moon this time!


Nefreet wrote:

Actually, there's even another aspect of this we haven't mentioned.

How did your alchemist get that extra set of claws? A feat? Feral Mutagen?

People argue that whatever added the claws to your Vestigial Arms is what adds the claw attacks, and not the arms themselves.

That was already addressed. A tengu taking up levels of draconic sorcerer doesn't suddenly get 4 claw attacks. A tengu draconic sorcerer with a feral mutagen does not get 6 claw attacks. If you need the vestigial arms, at all, the vestigial arms are what lets you get the attack. You need the arms, thats WHY people are trying to take them.

Quote:
So, I kindly ask you to go back to using apples yourself.

That make no sense at all.


The Morphling wrote:

The rules are clear, you *can* get four claw attacks, but there is still a large group who misinterprets it because of the "does not grant extra attacks" clause (which is there to reduce confusion by beginners who believe extra arms inherently add iterative attacks, but unfortunately adds confusion by people who think it applies to areas it doesn't). The argument will never die until Paizo FAQs it. This gets asked once a week, and will keep doing so until they answer it.

(Of course, when they do FAQ it, they will probably change it. As it stands, it works - once they update it, I'm sure it won't. They're pretty clear on their stance against getting extra attacks from any source.)

Why would anyone think extra arms ever add to iterative attacks? That language is in there so people can't multiweapon fight or TWF with two-handed weapons. Iteratives have nothing to do with it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Like I said, it's simple. How many attacks did you get WITHOUT vestigial arms? That's how many attacks you get after vestigial arms.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

And, in this case, that's 5.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
The Morphling wrote:
Do either of you honestly have even the tiniest shred of hope you will convince anyone with this argument?

Absolutely.

If you recall, I was on the other side of the fence at one time, until recently.


I honestly don't think this is FAQ worthy.

The rules aren't even unclear.

People can always interprete it in another way if they want to. Both the rules text, and SKR's comment clearly states that it does not allow additional attacks. Yet people keep questioning it.
As we've seen several times lately, this is not going to change even if the matter gets a FAQ respone. People are going to change the examples slightly and try to do what they want to do.

Let's just play the game please. I'd even let you make extra attacks with your vestigal limbs at my table, if it means that we can stop asking for FAQ replies for every aspect of the game, and let developers have time to design new stuff.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
HaraldKlak wrote:
Both the rules text, and SKR's comment clearly states that it does not allow additional attacks.

I don't believe anybody is disputing this.


Nefreet wrote:
HaraldKlak wrote:
Both the rules text, and SKR's comment clearly states that it does not allow additional attacks.
I don't believe anybody is disputing this.

You are just arguing the very foundation of the definition of 'additional'.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

No.

Nothing we are arguing should be considered "additional" or "extra". Once you get over that idea, it will make much more sense to you.

1 to 50 of 176 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Vestigial Arm(s) and Natural Attacks All Messageboards