Looking at Kasatha: Does Multiarmed NOT give additional attacks?


Rules Questions


I was under the impression that the multi armed racial trait granted additional off-hand attacks. Looking at the entry for Kasatha in Bestiary 4, that doesn't seem to be the case, unless this race uses a different version of the trait?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

They typically don't print a two-weapon fighting or multiweapon fighting attack line unless they have the feat. But yes it could make attacks with all 4 arms.

It would be unarmed strike -1 (1d6+1), 3 unarmed strike -5 (1d6).


Maezer wrote:

They typically don't print a two-weapon fighting or multiweapon fighting attack line unless they have the feat. But yes it could make attacks with all 4 arms.

It would be unarmed strike -1 (1d6+1), 3 unarmed strike -5 (1d6).

Okay thanks.


Let me clarify here, because I don't think it is being adequately covered.

Multiweapon fighting does this:

Quote:

Multiweapon Fighting (Combat)

This multi-armed creature is skilled at making attacks with multiple weapons.

Prerequisites: Dex 13, three or more hands.

Benefit: Penalties for fighting with multiple weapons are reduced by –2 with the primary hand and by –6 with off hands.

Normal: A creature without this feat takes a –6 penalty on attacks made with its primary hand and a –10 penalty on attacks made with all of its off hands. (It has one primary hand, and all the others are off hands.) See Two-Weapon Fighting in the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook.

Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms.

If you read the feat its like two weapon fighting, which only reduces the penalty for fighting with weapons in additional arms. Improved and Greater Two Weapon Fighting feats are what actually grant additional off-hand attacks. Without them even at 20 BAB your off-hand will only get one attack. This holds true for Multiweapon fighting, and there is no Improved of Greater Multiweapon fighting. So arms 3 and 4 (or more) of a creature will only ever get 1 attack. Arm 2 can get more if you take Improved and Greater Two Weapon Fighting. This is the rules as they exist.

You could house-rule equivalents and create an Improved and Greater Multiweapon fighting, but I suggest heavily against it as the game isn't balanced around a player being able to regularly make so many attacks in a round.


Ellis Mirari wrote:
Maezer wrote:

They typically don't print a two-weapon fighting or multiweapon fighting attack line unless they have the feat. But yes it could make attacks with all 4 arms.

It would be unarmed strike -1 (1d6+1), 3 unarmed strike -5 (1d6).

Okay thanks.

As a DM, I would have serious reservations against allowing that race as a player character. Four attacks at level 1, 8 attacks at level 6 is a bit much for just a multiweapon fighting/ improved multiweapon fighting feat. Think what a flanking rogue can do with this.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Yes, they get extra attacks for the additional arms. Without the Multiweapon Fighting feat, the attacks are at -6 for the primary and -10 for the three "off-hand" attacks; with the feat, all attacks are at -4. Unarmed attacks are treated the same as weapons for penalties; kasathas do not have claws, no natural weapon attacks are a non-issue.

"This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms" means that you cannot also take the Two-Weapon Fighting feat chain to gain additional "off-hand" attacks; one per arm is the limit, other than the primary. There is no "Improved" version of the Multiweapon Fighting feat that grants additional "off hand" attacks.


harzerkatze wrote:
Ellis Mirari wrote:
Maezer wrote:

They typically don't print a two-weapon fighting or multiweapon fighting attack line unless they have the feat. But yes it could make attacks with all 4 arms.

It would be unarmed strike -1 (1d6+1), 3 unarmed strike -5 (1d6).

Okay thanks.
As a DM, I would have serious reservations against allowing that race as a player character. Four attacks at level 1, 8 attacks at level 6 is a bit much for just a multiweapon fighting/ improved multiweapon fighting feat. Think what a flanking rogue can do with this.

Well, it is a 20 RP race, so it has plenty of competition.

Four really bad attacks at level one, yes, unless they're using a lot of daggers and invested the feat for Multiweapon Fighting. If they did those things, then they're not much better than a druid with a buffed-out badger companion and on par with a mixed-attacks eidolon. If they didn't, then very few of those attacks will hit their mark.

Where is 8 attacks at level 6 coming from? They get one extra iterative attack at level 6. Any attacks past five would have to come from other abilities already available to traditional PCs. There is no Improved Multiweapon Fighting, so that isn't an option for the Kasatha.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

The Multiweapon Fighting feat, and Two Weapon Fighting feat give no extra attacks.

They both lessen the penalties on attacks already available.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

The Multiweapon Fighting feat, and Two Weapon Fighting feat give no extra attacks.

They both lessen the penalties on attacks already available.

Exactly. And there is no Improved or Greater Multiweapon fighting.


Claxon wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

The Multiweapon Fighting feat, and Two Weapon Fighting feat give no extra attacks.

They both lessen the penalties on attacks already available.

Exactly. And there is no Improved or Greater Multiweapon fighting.

Perhaps a fair option would be to allow Multiweapon Fighting to substitute for TWF as a prerequisite for ITWF. You'd still gain a single extra attack with an offhand (not three), at the normal -5.


Exceptionalt there is no reasn to do so. The rules are not there to be nice. Muktiweapon fighting already acts as a stand in for twf why would you also have it stand in for itwf also?


I am not sure you understand what I meant- Multiweapon Fighting wouldn't grant you the iterative attack. You'd still have to take the second feat (Improved TWF). You just wouldn't have to take Two-Weapon Fighting as a prerequisite if you already have Multiweapon.


Oh appologies I suggest you read the feat. Multiweapon fighting says under special that it reppaces two weapon fighting for creatures with more than two arms. It already does what you want.


Yeah, Kasatha get four attacks at level 1, and can't hit with any of them except the primary, maybe. If they take MWF, they are maybe able to hit, if they keep the off-hand weapons light (rapier and 3 daggers).

Iteratives at 6 work just like TWF always does, it add's one primary attack at -5. That's it.

MWF counts as TWF, so you can take ITWF if you have MWF. It adds one off-hand attack. Not 3.

So really all the Kasatha get are 2 additional off-hand attacks at first level when multiweapon fighting. Where it get's wonky is theoertically they could weild two two-handed weapons and TWF. Except there are no rules for that as far as what the penalty is.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Well, Demon Revisited has the Multiweapon Specialist, and Multiweapon Defense feats.


mdt wrote:

Yeah, Kasatha get four attacks at level 1, and can't hit with any of them except the primary, maybe. If they take MWF, they are maybe able to hit, if they keep the off-hand weapons light (rapier and 3 daggers).

Iteratives at 6 work just like TWF always does, it add's one primary attack at -5. That's it.

MWF counts as TWF, so you can take ITWF if you have MWF. It adds one off-hand attack. Not 3.

So really all the Kasatha get are 2 additional off-hand attacks at first level when multiweapon fighting. Where it get's wonky is theoertically they could weild two two-handed weapons and TWF. Except there are no rules for that as far as what the penalty is.

+1

mdt and BlackBloodTroll (I think) are the two most on target here.

I find it odd that, considering the amount of discussion about how two-handed fighting is in every way superior to dual-wielding damage output, that anyone would really bat an eyelash at this. There also seems to be a large group of people who believe that Sneak Attack is not a good class ability (drawing from the playtest forums) so I also find it odd that Sneak Attack is used as a point of contention. Rogue is generally considered a very underpowered class, so would the addition of two attacks per round drag it out of the pit so to speak?

I think there is a lot of knee jerk "OMG WTF" reactions to Multiweapon Fighting.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Well, Multiweapon Fighting leads to really looooooong turns later in the game.

Especially if the player is not good at quick math, or has a hard time keeping track of penalties, and bonuses.

That is a relevant factor in the games I play in.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Well, Multiweapon Fighting leads to really looooooong turns later in the game.

Especially if the player is not good at quick math, or has a hard time keeping track of penalties, and bonuses.

That is a relevant factor in the games I play in.

With such players I tend to give them an extra sheet, where they have each possible combination of attacks written out.

-TWF - Power Attack
-Power Attack only
-TWF only
-Combat expertise - power attack - TWF
-Combat expertise - power attack
-Combat expertise - twf
-Combat expertise only

Etc.

Normally that doesn't take more than maybe two extra lines for the weapon in question.


So then what happens when one of them makes a monk....


Evilserran wrote:
So then what happens when one of them makes a monk....

In my experience the monk dies from a stray crit, before they can make an attack.

It's kind of wierd like that.

No really, why? What should happen?


If having extra arms allow that race to gain extra attacks, then it should argue a monk of the same race gets extra attacks as well... and yet, most say no, as flurry can be given with any body part and does not make a difference on limb count, doesnt seem very fair to me...


It's because Flurry is kind of based off TWF, but it isn't TWF.

Since it's it's own thing, it follows only the flurry rules, and MWF says nothing about flurry.

Consistently, what they should have done was say monks get TWF at 1st level, use their level as BAB when using it, and that they could use any body part and also TWF with a single striking weapon. If they'd done that, then Kasatha would get extra attacks when flurrying as a monk, because MWF would replace TWF that the monk got.

But since they didn't, they don't, and it doesn't work.


Mojorat wrote:
Oh appologies I suggest you read the feat. Multiweapon fighting says under special that it reppaces two weapon fighting for creatures with more than two arms. It already does what you want.

Oh! So it does. Thanks Mojo.

Quote:
Consistently, what they should have done was say monks get TWF at 1st level, use their level as BAB when using it, and that they could use any body part and also TWF with a single striking weapon. If they'd done that, then Kasatha would get extra attacks when flurrying as a monk, because MWF would replace TWF that the monk got.

Agreed. The flurry description does mention that it works a lot like TWF.

It could be even simpler: at the appropriate levels, the monk gains the Two-Weapon Fighting feats, but he may only use it when fighting with appropriate weapons, and treat BAB as a fighter when you make a full attack.

There's precedent; the Ranger's styles only apply when in correct armors.


That's pretty much what I was saying, give the feats and then put modifiers on the feat's use. Let's them also qualify for other things like Two-Weapon Defense, etc.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

You can finally attack with a greatsword and armor spikes.

Well, you could before, but then you couldn't, because, metaphorical hands.

I wonder if the Kasatha have extra metaphorical hands.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

You can finally attack with a greatsword and armor spikes.

Well, you could before, but then you couldn't, because, metaphorical hands.

I wonder if the Kasatha have extra metaphorical hands.

Yes, four of them. So they can't attack with two greatswords and armor spikes. Because metaphorical hands.


You can't attack with two greatswords.

To attack with a two-handed weapon, per the unwritten rules, requires one Primary and one Secondary.

They can attack with one great sword and two short swords.


mdt wrote:

You can't attack with two greatswords.

To attack with a two-handed weapon, per the unwritten rules, requires one Primary and one Secondary.

They can attack with one great sword and two short swords.

I stand corrected. Well, at any rate, BBT's pet issue still isn't different, except this race has four metaphorical hands instea of two.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
mdt wrote:

You can't attack with two greatswords.

To attack with a two-handed weapon, per the unwritten rules, requires one Primary and one Secondary.

They can attack with one great sword and two short swords.

There is no restriction on what weapon can be used as an off-hand attack.

Unless, it's another unwritten rule.


So the next build is going to be Kasatha Alchemists with two vestigial arms, finding ways to get claws on four of the limbs prior to feral mutagen for six claws and a bite attack.

Swell.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Well, two-handing two Sawtooth Sabres seems the best route.

Going Ranger, and being strength based, and having your off-hand attack counting as light, whilst still getting the bonus from a two-handed Power Attack on each weapon is nice.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
mdt wrote:

You can't attack with two greatswords.

To attack with a two-handed weapon, per the unwritten rules, requires one Primary and one Secondary.

They can attack with one great sword and two short swords.

There is no restriction on what weapon can be used as an off-hand attack.

Unless, it's another unwritten rule.

It's an unwritten rule.

You can't use a two-handed weapon as an off-hand, because a two-handed weapon per the unwritten 1.5 str mod rule has to use your primary attack plus one off hand.

Since you only have one primary, you can't wield more than one two-handed weapon, no matter how many off-hands you have.

So the off-hands have to use things that don't require a primary, like one-handed or light weapons.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

So, it's not RAW.

Just made up.

This means anything can be allowed, or disallowed, according to unwritten rules, because, there is no proof they do, or do not exist.

There could be unwritten rules that contradict written rules.

There could even be unwrittten rules, that make all other rules void.

Who is to say what those unwritten rules are?

I have just as much power to state what they are, as anyone else here.

I say, my unwritten rules state that all Gnomes are immune to critical hits.

You cannot disprove this, as you cannot read these unwritten rules.

In fact, what purpose do written rules have, if any unwritten rule can override them at a moment's notice?


Don't yell at me, I don't make the unwritten rules.

I just read them in the developer postings.

When they reveal them.

Otherwise I don't even know about them to repeat them.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Why would you want Improved and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting? You already get two extra attacks without ridiculously high penalties.

I actually have a character with four arms.


Depends on how many attacks you want per round.

If you have sneak attack or power attack, even a low chance to hit is still a big bump to DPR.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
mdt wrote:

Don't yell at me, I don't make the unwritten rules.

I just read them in the developer postings.

When they reveal them.

Otherwise I don't even know about them to repeat them.

They also change them.

Then they say they don't exist, and they never mentioned them.

Later, they mock those who don't know them.

I mean that. Literally, mock those who don't know them.

It doesn't happen often, but it's ugly when it does.


I don't know why a Kasatha couldn't wield two two-handed weapons. The second one would just get full STR bonus instead of 1.5.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
fretgod99 wrote:
I don't know why a Kasatha couldn't wield two two-handed weapons. The second one would just get full STR bonus instead of 1.5.

They can.

Nothing prevents it.

Only a few posters, referencing unwritten rules, disagree.


It's not directly relevant to Pathfinder, but in 3.5's Savage Species there were a number of rules for handling characters with more than 2 arms. Pathfinder doesn't really have them because it hasn't really come up.

One benefit of extra arms was that if you used more than 2 arms to wield a 2-handed weapon, each extra arm increased the STR bonus to damage by another x 0.5.

If you are using that rule then a Kasatha 4-handed fighter with a single greatsword would add 2.5 x his STR bonus to damage for the one attack.

If you are doing it this way then I see no reason to let the rogue get all those extra attacks. How else can he keep up?

I do agree with BlackBloodTroll though that it causes the game to slow way down. I would almost be inclined to houserule that all off-hand attacks use the same damage and to-hit roll, just to speed things up. You hit, you hit three times. You miss, you miss three times.

Peet


blackbloodtroll wrote:
mdt wrote:

Don't yell at me, I don't make the unwritten rules.

I just read them in the developer postings.

When they reveal them.

Otherwise I don't even know about them to repeat them.

They also change them.

Then they say they don't exist, and they never mentioned them.

Later, they mock those who don't know them.

I mean that. Literally, mock those who don't know them.

It doesn't happen often, but it's ugly when it does.

*sigh*. Even game designers are human. They lose patience and get cranky just like the rest of us. More than some, given the hours they often keep.

I'm not excusing it, but I understand it.


Peet wrote:

It's not directly relevant to Pathfinder, but in 3.5's Savage Species there were a number of rules for handling characters with more than 2 arms. Pathfinder doesn't really have them because it hasn't really come up.

One benefit of extra arms was that if you used more than 2 arms to wield a 2-handed weapon, each extra arm increased the STR bonus to damage by another x 0.5.

If you are using that rule then a Kasatha 4-handed fighter with a single greatsword would add 2.5 x his STR bonus to damage for the one attack.

If you are doing it this way then I see no reason to let the rogue get all those extra attacks. How else can he keep up?

I do agree with BlackBloodTroll though that it causes the game to slow way down. I would almost be inclined to houserule that all off-hand attacks use the same damage and to-hit roll, just to speed things up. You hit, you hit three times. You miss, you miss three times.

Peet

It's no worse than any PC with Greater Two-Weapon Fighting unless the character has more than four arms. I don't see the issue.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
blahpers wrote:

*sigh*. Even game designers are human. They lose patience and get cranky just like the rest of us. More than some, given the hours they often keep.

I'm not excusing it, but I understand it.

Oh, I get that. That's why I willing to forgive readily, if they apologize.

Doesn't mean I like it, but I understand it.

Also, as I said, it doesn't happen often, but when it does, it's disheartening.

This is because most of the time, they are pretty cool guys/gals.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Looking at Kasatha: Does Multiarmed NOT give additional attacks? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.