Now that the Bestiary 4 includes the Kasatha, a player race with four arms, I am curious what other DMs would allow such a character to do with that. I know that the rules strictly RAW give you more off-hand attacks and nothing else, but of course players would like to use those hands for other things, too. And many limitations only exist because almost any race has only two arms, so that's what developers thought about.
So would you allow e.g. the following things?
1) The character has multi-weapon fighting and wants to draw 4 weapons or weapon-like objects as one move action. The rules only allow drawing two when you have two-weapon fighting.
2) Wielding a weapon to make AoOs, a shield, a metamagic rod and casting a modified spell with somatic components at the same time.
3) In a grapple, characters can only do things that require one haand, probably because the other has to hold the enemy. As this character has more hands, would you allow actions that require more hands, e.g. spellcasting with a metamagic rod? Attacks using multiweapon fighting with three hands? Wielding a greatsword?
4) If I have a Kasatha Magus, would you give spell combat more attacks? Spell Combat is like Two-weapon fighting, but a Kasatha uses multiweapon fighting in place of two-weapon fighting.
For one, I recomend quick draw. And for Three, the grapple rules do not care how many limbs you have. In regards to 4, thats between you and your DM but i would personally give no extra attacks. That said, i would also never allow anyone to play one of these as a PC.
I've been playing a four-armed anthropomorphic cerberus magus for several months, so let's see what I can help you with.
The big thing to remember is this line from Multi-Weapon Fighting: "Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms." In the realm of your character, Two-Weapon Fighting no longer exists. Only Multi-Weapon Fighting exists. This means that this feat applies to anything that references Two-Weapon Fighting. For example, this makes Flurry of Blows work like Multi-Weapon Fighting. This interpretation is supported by the fact that many "special" feat benefits tend to be meta.
1) The character has multi-weapon fighting and wants to draw 4 weapons or weapon-like objects as one move action. The rules only allow drawing two when you have two-weapon fighting.
Strictly RAW, you can draw two weapons, but no more than that. However, it's reasonable to houserule that you can draw as many weapons as you can hold. Even so, Quick Draw is still amazing to have for a multi-armed character. It's especially amazing for my magus as I can use a free action to draw a metamagic rod and spell combat in the same turn.
2) Wielding a weapon to make AoOs, a shield, a metamagic rod and casting a modified spell with somatic components at the same time.
I'm not sure what you're asking here. What are you doing specifically? You can do all of that as long as you're not violating the action economy -- for example, you can't cast a spell as an attack of opportunity. You can't attack and cast a spell in the same turn unless you using Quicken Spell or spell combat or something.
3) In a grapple, characters can only do things that require one haand, probably because the other has to hold the enemy. As this character has more hands, would you allow actions that require more hands, e.g. spellcasting with a metamagic rod? Attacks using multiweapon fighting with three hands? Wielding a greatsword?
Grapple rules limit your actions down to a very specific list, so having more arms would not give you more options. However, it might be a reasonable houserule that you can use a two-handed weapon to attack with, but spellcasting is completely out of the question.
4) If I have a Kasatha Magus, would you give spell combat more attacks? Spell Combat is like Two-weapon fighting, but a Kasatha uses multiweapon fighting in place of two-weapon fighting.
This one's not as clear cut, but I'd say you could get your extra attacks. Spell combat explains that you are basically multi-weapon fighting with one off-hand casting a spell. The text also indicates you can make all available attacks during spell combat. FAQs say spell combat benefits from any effects that increase the number of attacks when you full attack. Thus, if you're wielding three weapons and have one hand free, you can make three attacks and cast a spell.
There's some restrictions here. The text specifically says you need a free hand and a light or one-handed weapon to use the ability.
I would never allow the character to play, because a Level 5 synthesist Kasatha could walk into your gaming session with Multiweapon Fighting, Extra Evolution Poolx2, and 14 arms/hands/attacks with weapons (all at a -2 to hit). Throw a level of rogue on that and euuu.
1) The character has multi-weapon fighting and wants to draw 4 weapons or weapon-like objects as one move action. The rules only allow drawing two when you have two-weapon fighting.
As answered above, Quick Draw allows 2 weapons per round if you read it one way and all your weapons if you read it another. This is one of the can of worms not to be opened on the message boards.
2) Wielding a weapon to make AoOs, a shield, a metamagic rod and casting a modified spell with somatic components at the same time.
This appears legit.
3) In a grapple, characters can only do things that require one hand, probably because the other has to hold the enemy. As this character has more hands, would you allow actions that require more hands, e.g. spellcasting with a metamagic rod? Attacks using multiweapon fighting with three hands? Wielding a greatsword?
I must have read grapple differently. I will look it up before spouting anything specific.
4) If I have a Kasatha Magus, would you give spell combat more attacks? Spell Combat is like Two-weapon fighting, but a Kasatha uses multiweapon fighting in place of two-weapon fighting.
Balance is the key importance as a DM. You want the other players to have fun also. Allowing him to have more spell combat attacks would cause unbalance in his favor, unless hes playing with people that like to break their characters.
Thinking about multi-weapon fighting revealed to me that I do not fully understand how the monk works, which is bad since I play one.
Can a monk decide to use two-weapon fighting (or in case of a kasatha monk, multi-weapon fighting) with his unarmed strikes? Effectively ignoring flurry of blows and making multi-weapon attacks with his fists like any other Kasatha could?
Problem is that the Unarmed Strike description in the monk class says "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking
unarmed. A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes." Does that mean a monk cannot use off-hand attacks with his fists, so he couldn't use multi-weapon fighting with them, or does this mean that when he multi-weapon fights with his fists, all his attacks would add the full strength bonus, as they are no longer off-hands?
Like Archaeik says, the text that says "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk" is a figurative way of saying that rules do not treat monk off-hand unarmed strikes as off-hand attacks. This was intended for things like Power Attack and determining the Strength bonus for damage. As a result, a 1st level Kasatha can apply his full Strength bonus to all four of his unarmed strikes and any attack made during flurry of blows.
A monk can choose to use two-weapon fighting instead of flurry of blows. However, he takes penalties as if he does not have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat. The same goes for Multiweapon Fighting.
Flurry of blows is basically two-weapon fighting with additional bonuses and restrictions. With a Kasatha, it is like multiweapon fighting instead of two-weapon fighting.
With a Kasatha, it is like multiweapon fighting instead of two-weapon fighting.
This I very much doubt. While it would be cool, I believe that nowhere is it said that a multi-armed monk gets more flurry attacks than a two-armed one.
With a Kasatha, it is like multiweapon fighting instead of two-weapon fighting.This I very much doubt. While it would be cool, I believe that nowhere is it said that a multi-armed monk gets more flurry attacks than a two-armed one.
Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms.
Two-Weapon Fighting (with Two-Weapon Fighting feat) allows you to make an extra attack using your off hand with a -2 attack penalty during a full attack.
Flurry of blows is a full attack that grants an extra attack as Two-Weapon Fighting.
Multiweapon Fighting replaces Two-Weapon Fighting (in a meta way) for Kasatha because they have three off hands, as the Multiweapon Fighting feat says so.
Therefore, flurry of blows is a full attack that grants extra attacks as multiweapon fighting.
With a Kasatha, it is like multiweapon fighting instead of two-weapon fighting.This I very much doubt. While it would be cool, I believe that nowhere is it said that a multi-armed monk gets more flurry attacks than a two-armed one.Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms.Two-Weapon Fighting (with Two-Weapon Fighting feat) allows you to make an extra attack using your off hand with a -2 attack penalty during a full attack.
Flurry of blows is a full attack that grants an extra attack as Two-Weapon Fighting.
Multiweapon Fighting replaces Two-Weapon Fighting (in a meta way) for Kasatha because they have three off hands, as the Multiweapon Fighting feat says so.
Therefore, flurry of blows is a full attack that grants extra attacks as multiweapon fighting.
The main sticking point against your interpretation is that flurry isn't TWF, it refers to it for some of its mechanics. Flurry is not the same as TWF, they are not interchangeble. Just because of the reference doesn't mean you get to put TWF in its place whenever you like, as you are doing here. In a home game, if your GM let's it fly cool. But I'm sure it would never make it in organized play.
The main sticking point against your interpretation is that flurry isn't TWF, it refers to it for some of its mechanics. Flurry is not the same as TWF, they are not interchangeble. Just because of the reference doesn't mean you get to put TWF in its place whenever you like, as you are doing here. In a home game, if your GM let's it fly cool. But I'm sure it would never make it in organized play.
Multiweapon Fighting says "This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms." -- full stop. For a Kasatha, the TWF feat does not exist, only MWF does. Special feat benefits tend to be meta like this. Also, flurry of blows is two-weapon fighting. If it were otherwise, one could stack flurry of blows with two-weapon fighting.
Kasatha will never make it to organized play, anyway. It's a 20 RP monstrous race. Having four arms is a massive boon, so one should not be surprised to see it enabling some very powerful combinations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The main sticking point against your interpretation is that flurry isn't TWF, it refers to it for some of its mechanics. Flurry is not the same as TWF, they are not interchangeble. Just because of the reference doesn't mean you get to put TWF in its place whenever you like, as you are doing here. In a home game, if your GM let's it fly cool. But I'm sure it would never make it in organized play.Multiweapon Fighting says "This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms." -- full stop. For a Kasatha, the TWF feat does not exist, only MWF does. Special feat benefits tend to be meta like this. Also, flurry of blows is two-weapon fighting. If it were otherwise, one could stack flurry of blows with two-weapon fighting.
Kasatha will never make it to organized play, anyway. It's a 20 RP monstrous race. Having four arms is a massive boon, so one should not be surprised to see it enabling some very powerful combinations.
Opens mouth.
Closes mouth.Leaves thread.
The main sticking point against your interpretation is that flurry isn't TWF, it refers to it for some of its mechanics. Flurry is not the same as TWF, they are not interchangeble. Just because of the reference doesn't mean you get to put TWF in its place whenever you like, as you are doing here. In a home game, if your GM let's it fly cool. But I'm sure it would never make it in organized play.Multiweapon Fighting says "This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms." -- full stop. For a Kasatha, the TWF feat does not exist, only MWF does. Special feat benefits tend to be meta like this. Also, flurry of blows is two-weapon fighting. If it were otherwise, one could stack flurry of blows with two-weapon fighting.
Kasatha will never make it to organized play, anyway. It's a 20 RP monstrous race. Having four arms is a massive boon, so one should not be surprised to see it enabling some very powerful combinations.
TWF and flurry are positively not the same. They may be similar, but similar does not mean equal and interchangeable. There are things that happen when doing one that don't happen when doing the other. There are things that can be combined with one that are unable to be combined with the other.
Beyond that, the feat TWF doesn't cease to exist and do what it does because you have four arms. Flurry outlines specifically what it allows you to do and makes reference to an existing ability for mechanics and easy of use. It doesn't grant you TWF, it grants you an ability similar but not the same as TWF. Incidentally, there is no improved or greater MWFing, so your argument starts to make less sense. Your 4 armed monk would never get any more attacks from flurry ever. They never get the ITWF/GTWF because TWFing doesn't exist when you have 4 arms, and there are no additional feats for MWFing.
The main sticking point against your interpretation is that flurry isn't TWF, it refers to it for some of its mechanics. Flurry is not the same as TWF, they are not interchangeble. Just because of the reference doesn't mean you get to put TWF in its place whenever you like, as you are doing here. In a home game, if your GM let's it fly cool. But I'm sure it would never make it in organized play.Multiweapon Fighting says "This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms." -- full stop. For a Kasatha, the TWF feat does not exist, only MWF does. Special feat benefits tend to be meta like this. Also, flurry of blows is two-weapon fighting. If it were otherwise, one could stack flurry of blows with two-weapon fighting.
Kasatha will never make it to organized play, anyway. It's a 20 RP monstrous race. Having four arms is a massive boon, so one should not be surprised to see it enabling some very powerful combinations.
TWF and flurry are positively not the same. They may be similar, but similar does not mean equal and interchangeable. There are things that happen when doing one that don't happen when doing the other. There are things that can be combined with one that are unable to be combined with the other.
Beyond that, the feat TWF doesn't cease to exist and do what it does because you have four arms. Flurry outlines specifically what it allows you to do and makes reference to an existing ability for mechanics and easy of use. It doesn't grant you TWF, it grants you an ability similar but not the same as TWF. Incidentally, there is no improved or greater MWFing, so your argument starts to make less sense. Your 4 armed monk would never get any more attacks from flurry ever. They never get the ITWF/GTWF because TWFing doesn't exist when you have 4 arms, and there are no additional feats for MWFing.
The rules explicitly state that off hand weapons grant extra attacks on a full attack action. Flurry of blows is a full attack action. So even with your interpretation, a Kasatha would still get extra attacks with his extra arms during flurry of blows for the same reason a monk benefits from the haste spell while flurrying. Nothing about flurry of blows indicates a kasatha wouldn't get extra attacks from his extra off hands. If anything, only the extra attack from his first off hand wouldn't stack with TWF.
As for Improved and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting references, flurry of blows says he simply gets extra attacks regardless of prerequisites. So, a kasatha simply gets an extra attack at 8th and 15th level.
Well what is it, TWFing exists so you get ITWF/GTWF attacks or it doesn't exist. It states extra attacks as if ITWF or GTWF, not just a static additional attack(s). Just like the initial write up states as if the TWF feat.
You really seem to be picking & choosing where you get things applied. Any time someone is doing that dance, they are almost always bending/breaking rules. Flurry grants something like TWFing, because it isn't TWF you don't get to swap in MWF for flurry per the special line. If you want MWF, you can take the feat, but you would be unable to apply the special flurry rules/conditions to MWF.
They are not the same.
It would work that way if it were a ranger, because your get the actual feat. Not some ability that is similar to the distinctly different feat, like Flurry.
Taking it further, flurry isn't dependant on limbs or weapons. A monk with 20 arms is the same as an armless monk. The ability specifically states 1 additional attack, like if you had TWFing. Monks unarmed strikes are made with any part of the body. Multiple limbs make no difference to the Flurry.
No, you're missing my point here. My point is that no matter how you interpret how the MWF feat interacts with flurry of blows, a kasatha should still get extra attacks for his extra arms.
If the MWF feat replaces TWF for flurry of blows, then flurry of blows works like multiweapon fighting.
If the MWF feat does NOT replace TWF for flurry of blows, a kasatha still gets extra attacks from his extra off hands because flurry is a full attack action and the rules state that off hand weapons grant extra attacks on a full attack action. If this were not true, then a monk would not get extra attacks from sources such as the haste spell.
Unless you can prove in the rules where I'm wrong in both cases, a kasatha gets extra attacks on a flurry of blows.
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Wait, I thought that two doesn't stack with fob, so why would multi armed fighting?
The two weapon fighting feat doesn't stack with flurry of blows because the monk already benefits from the penalty reduction. Two-weapon fighting (mechanic) is not an action -- it's a modification of the full attack action. Honestly, I think most of the conflicting interpretations on this thread are valid. The rules for extra off hand attacks are not always clear and flurry of blows is awkwardly worded. It's made worse by the confusion between TWF feat and the TWF mechanic. I've seen at least five threads asking about multiweapon fighting in the past week. I think this is a FAQ worthy of consideration.
Can a multi-armed character, such as a Kasatha, use multiweapon fighting for abilities such as flurry of blows and spell combat?
How does the Multiweapon Fighting feat interact with abilities that reference two-weapon fighting and the Two-Weapon Fighting feat?
No, you're missing my point here. My point is that no matter how you interpret how the MWF feat interacts with flurry of blows, a kasatha should still get extra attacks for his extra arms.
If the MWF feat replaces TWF for flurry of blows, then flurry of blows works like multiweapon fighting.
If the MWF feat does NOT replace TWF for flurry of blows, a kasatha still gets extra attacks from his extra off hands because flurry is a full attack action and the rules state that off hand weapons grant extra attacks on a full attack action. If this were not true, then a monk would not get extra attacks from sources such as the haste spell.
Unless you can prove in the rules where I'm wrong in both cases, a kasatha gets extra attacks on a flurry of blows.
As Pathfinder is an exception based rule set, how about you show me the rules stating explicitly that you can do it? Again the rules for flurry are similar but not the same as the TWFing action. Because they aren't the same, you can't arbitrarily switch the two, and so you are unable to push MWFing into the Flurry.
As Pathfinder is an exception based rule set, how about you show me the rules stating explicitly that you can do it? Again the rules for flurry are similar but not the same as the TWFing action. Because they aren't the same, you can't arbitrarily switch the two, and so you are unable to push MWFing into the Flurry.
I already made my case and you're switching the burden of proof. It also doesn't make any sense that a character would not benefit from multiple hands in abilities utilizing mechanics gated by their number of off hands.
Flurry of blows does not care how many arms you have, or in fact how many weapons you have. Given under current rules a monk with one weapon can flurry of blows with that one weapon for every attack he has. I am not sure that adding extra arms would or should change anything.
Really at the end of the day, its something used in a home game. have your DM make a decision and move on.