Two weapon fighting with double weapons via vestigial arms


Rules Questions


Ok, as I know the whole "wielding two, two handed weapons" thing with vestigial is controversial, but unless an FAQ was made banning it explicitly, this thread is going to assume, at least on my part, that it is legal RAW.

Now, when pondering a two, two handed weapon build, I thought of something: does wielding two, two handed, double weapons give you the normal "off hand" attack ALONG WITH two more attacks for using double weapons?

Example of what I mean: so, a human alchemist with four arms (two natural, two from discoveries) wields two dire flails. His BAB is +10, so he gets two normal attacks. Then, because of two weapon fighting, he gets a third, off hand attack too. All of these have the normal penalties of course. What I'm asking about is if then, because dire flails (or whatever double weapon the guy could be using) are double weapons, would he get two more "off hand" attacks, one from each dire flail?

Two more things:

1. Yes, I know this is unreasonable and OP, but that isn't what I'm asking about.

2. I'm just looking for if this is RAW or not. Whether or not my DM would allow it will be his judgment. If I get a lot of mixed answers, and there's no relevant FAQ or errata, I'll assume it's doable and let my DM decide.

Thanks in advance.


Ok, here's the thing; you get 1 off-hand attack standard (regardless of whether you have the TWF feat or not; that just reduces penalties). This is regardless of how many possible weapons you're wielding. Even if you had a double-sword plus two daggers held in your four hands (w/ vestigial), a boulder helmet, boot blade, IUS, armor spikes, whatever, you still only have however many iterative attacks are allotted by your BAB (and, without even using TWF rules, you can take each iterative attack with any weapon at your disposal), and, if you choose to use TWF rules to get an extra attack, that's all you get... one extra attack regardless of how many other weapons you have available to use. ITWF gives you a second off-hand, and GTWF gives a third. So, even if wielding two double weapons in 4 hands, with +16 BAB and ITWF, you still only have 4 main-hand attacks and 2 off-hand attacks.


The answer is, could you do it with only two arms? If no the answer is no.


Any setup that provide more attacks than you'd get without vestigial arms will not work.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Claxon wrote:
The answer is, could you do it with only two arms? If no the answer is no.

The restriction does not work exactly as you have quoted.

It is the number of attacks, not the type of attacks, that is restricted.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Claxon wrote:
The answer is, could you do it with only two arms? If no the answer is no.

The restriction does not work exactly as you have quoted.

It is the number of attacks, not the type of attacks, that is restricted.

The thread itself is rather long (where they issued the FAQ) but I'm fairly positive one of the decision that came out of it was that when wielding weapons you weren't allowed to do anything that you wouldn't normally be able to do with 2 hands.

If I recall correctly you weren't allowed to wield 4 daggers as part of the thread.


Quote:

The thread itself is rather long (where they issued the FAQ) but I'm fairly positive one of the decision that came out of it was that when wielding weapons you weren't allowed to do anything that you wouldn't normally be able to do with 2 hands.

If I recall correctly you weren't allowed to wield 4 daggers as part of the thread.

That's what I got out of it. With VA, you can do things that you would have been able to do with 2 hands - but you have a much easier time of it, because you don't have to spend as much time drawing/sheathing things. You could wield a longspear and a greataxe and threaten at reach and adjacent, and attack with either, without having to sheathe, drop, or draw anything. You couldn't two-weapon fight with a pair of two-handers, though, so you still can't with VA.


Claxon wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Claxon wrote:
The answer is, could you do it with only two arms? If no the answer is no.

The restriction does not work exactly as you have quoted.

It is the number of attacks, not the type of attacks, that is restricted.

The thread itself is rather long (where they issued the FAQ) but I'm fairly positive one of the decision that came out of it was that when wielding weapons you weren't allowed to do anything that you wouldn't normally be able to do with 2 hands.

If I recall correctly you weren't allowed to wield 4 daggers as part of the thread.

I don't see that in the FAQ anywhere.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Claxon wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Claxon wrote:
The answer is, could you do it with only two arms? If no the answer is no.

The restriction does not work exactly as you have quoted.

It is the number of attacks, not the type of attacks, that is restricted.

The thread itself is rather long (where they issued the FAQ) but I'm fairly positive one of the decision that came out of it was that when wielding weapons you weren't allowed to do anything that you wouldn't normally be able to do with 2 hands.

If I recall correctly you weren't allowed to wield 4 daggers as part of the thread.

You are unable to attack with 4 daggers, but perfectly capable of wielding wielding 4 daggers.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Claxon wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Claxon wrote:
The answer is, could you do it with only two arms? If no the answer is no.

The restriction does not work exactly as you have quoted.

It is the number of attacks, not the type of attacks, that is restricted.

The thread itself is rather long (where they issued the FAQ) but I'm fairly positive one of the decision that came out of it was that when wielding weapons you weren't allowed to do anything that you wouldn't normally be able to do with 2 hands.

If I recall correctly you weren't allowed to wield 4 daggers as part of the thread.

You are unable to attack with 4 daggers, but perfectly capable of wielding wielding 4 daggers.

Yes, but the OPs post reads as if he intends to wield and attack with two two-handed weapons. Which wouldn't be possible.

I agree he can hold two two-handed weapons, but doing so wouldn't be particularly useful. You could conceivably hold a bow and a two-handed and alternate their use between rounds or something to that effect, but I don't believe thats what the OP was after.

Edit: I now realize the mistake I made, I said wield (thinking of the English word usage rather than the specific meaning the word has in Pathfidner) instead of attack. Mea culpa.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Claxon wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Claxon wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Claxon wrote:
The answer is, could you do it with only two arms? If no the answer is no.

The restriction does not work exactly as you have quoted.

It is the number of attacks, not the type of attacks, that is restricted.

The thread itself is rather long (where they issued the FAQ) but I'm fairly positive one of the decision that came out of it was that when wielding weapons you weren't allowed to do anything that you wouldn't normally be able to do with 2 hands.

If I recall correctly you weren't allowed to wield 4 daggers as part of the thread.

You are unable to attack with 4 daggers, but perfectly capable of wielding wielding 4 daggers.

Yes, but the OPs post reads as if he intends to wield and attack with two two-handed weapons. Which wouldn't be possible.

I agree he can hold two two-handed weapons, but doing so wouldn't be particularly useful. You could conceivably hold a bow and a two-handed and alternate their use between rounds or something to that effect, but I don't believe thats what the OP was after.

Edit: I now realize the mistake I made, I said wield (thinking of the English word usage rather than the specific meaning the word has in Pathfidner) instead of attack. Mea culpa.

That's still just two attacks.

Surprisingly, two equals two.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

That's still just two attacks.

Surprisingly, two equals two.

Unless you can point out somewhere were it's explicitly allowed were at an impasse I guess. The way I understand the rules is if you couldn't do it with two hands, you can't do it with vestigial arms.

We both know that FAQ is a horrible mess in the first place BBT.


I don't like it but sadly yes I believe it is legal. The feat says u weild weapons in each of ur hands and it is weilding weapons in each of its hands. Since he's at 10 bab then he gets an atk off with both 2 handers and gets the free atk in as well using two weapon fighting.
Tbh I'm more curious about the +str to dmg. Because ur weilding 2 weapons does the offhand only use 1/2 str to dmg on the free atk or is it still 1.5xstr to dmg?


The problem is 2 handed weapons require a primary hand and a secondary hand. Vestigial arms does not give you an additional primary hand to attack with anything. In fact it doesn't give you any additional "hands" to make attacks with.

Also, even if it was a race like Kasatha he has 1 primary hand and 3 secondary hands. He could not attack with 2 two-handed weapons.


Wielding two double weapons is no different than wielding 4 daggers. You designate one of those four daggers as your off-hand weapon (to adjudicate light off-hand penalties) and, as standard, you get one off-hand attack with it. Then, you can use any of the other three daggers to deliver your 2 main-hand attacks. Likewise, if wielding 2 double weapons, you designate one end to be used as your off-hand weapon and get one off-hand attack with it, then you can use any of the three other ends to make up to 2 main-hand attacks. You do not get two off-hand attacks just because you're wielding two double weapons; you get one off-hand attack because everyone gets one off-hand attack regardless of how many or few weapons (with one end of a double weapon treated, mechanically, as a weapon unto itself) you have ready to use. Only creatures that naturally have multiple arms use Multi-weapon Fighting rules which gives you a number of off-hand attacks equal to your total number of arms -1.


Trust me I'm in the same camp but with the recent vestigial arms discovery, ur hands have nothing to do with it at all. Simply the number of atks. The OP gave an example of someone with 10 bab so that perwon gets 2 atks. Doesnt matter which hands or how many hands unfortuantly, it matters about the atks. Hence why someone who has vestigial arms can make 2 claw atks and 2 weapon atks. Simply because its all about the atks and not the actual hands. Someone who has 2 atks gets 2 atks witha. 2hander. They aren't gaining any new atks just different weapons.
Do I like what I'm writing kr agree with it? Nope but its in the rules sadly

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Claxon wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

That's still just two attacks.

Surprisingly, two equals two.

Unless you can point out somewhere were it's explicitly allowed were at an impasse I guess. The way I understand the rules is if you couldn't do it with two hands, you can't do it with vestigial arms.

We both know that FAQ is a horrible mess in the first place BBT.

Yes, it is a mess.

It doesn't say exactly what you think it says though.


Character get attacks based on BAB, plus ONE secondary attack. The exception to this is if they have feats that give them extra attacks. Holding many ready weapons just give you many options to make those attacks. If amount of ready weapons dictated number of attacks then monks would rule the world. (they may attack with fist, elbows keens and feet which is 8 ready weapons).

Liberty's Edge

Vestigial arms doesn't make you as good as a creature with 3+ arms.


Harrythefish wrote:
Character get attacks based on BAB, plus ONE secondary attack. The exception to this is if they have feats that give them extra attacks. Holding many ready weapons just give you many options to make those attacks. If amount of ready weapons dictated number of attacks then monks would rule the world. (they may attack with fist, elbows keens and feet which is 8 ready weapons).

I don't think it was a question about available weapons, but confusion as to the source of the offhand attacks. It was discussed, but not stated directly that double weapons don't grant those extra attacks.

Further, it's been clarified that UAS is a single weapon. (however you can always TWF with it)


Leave Vestigial Arms for what it was intended for; having a free hand for things that require a free hand (spellcasting, drinking, throwing, etc.) or holding a shield along with a weapon wielded in 2 hands. It's been pretty well established that whatever else you're thinking of doing with them is fundamentally exploitative in nature and doomed to failure from the get-go.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Kazaan wrote:
Leave Vestigial Arms for what it was intended for; having a free hand for things that require a free hand (spellcasting, drinking, throwing, etc.) or holding a shield along with a weapon wielded in 2 hands. It's been pretty well established that whatever else you're thinking of doing with them is fundamentally exploitative in nature and doomed to failure from the get-go.

Hell, holding a shield, or counting as a free hand, or doing anything that isn't a hindrance, or actually decreasing your available attacks, is some how exploitative, in some people's opinion.

Basically, if you have this Discovery, and are not spending a full-round action to punch yourself in the face every turn, you are the cheaty-face munchkin blah blah blah cheese doody head, of all doody heads.


A double weapon does not grant any extra attacks. It allows you to use a single weapon with two-weapon fighting.

So even if we assume hypothetically that you can wield a double weapon in each pair of hands, you don't get any more attacks than you would if you were wielding a one-handed weapon in each of your four hands.


The definite is thatyoou ONLY GET TWO ATTACKS (three with improved and four with greater)

of course you get you normal iterations as well.
the FAQ also states that added natural attacks to the hands, such as through feral mutagen, will not add extra attacks.

Like a clawed kobold with vestigial arms and feral mutagen still only gets two claw attacks.

you CAN chose your attacks though, so you can wield the double weapons and chose which sides to attack with out of the four, if you have four attacks through TWF BAB you can actually chose to hit once with all four, but you don't get extra attacks

the houserule department will take over damage mods and ability to use two handed weapons

The most common math i've seen would be for a 2-handed weapon with twf would be 1.5 and .5, being that your main hand deals 1 times damage and each of your off hands deals 1/2 damage (In regards to str mod)and they would be added


Xaratherus wrote:

A double weapon does not grant any extra attacks. It allows you to use a single weapon with two-weapon fighting.

So even if we assume hypothetically that you can wield a double weapon in each pair of hands, you don't get any more attacks than you would if you were wielding a one-handed weapon in each of your four hands.

Two double weapons should work, as long as you are using them as double weapons. (Obviously you do not get extra attacks from the weapons.) You cannot use two 2-handed weapons with two weapon fighting because you cannot make an off-hand attack with the two-handed weapon. The double weapon, however, is treated as a one-handed weapon and a light weapon, both of which can be used as an off-hand weapon. Not really the most optimal choice but could be a really cool character. (How he's carrying two double weapons everywhere, I don't know!)

Edited


All I know is that any ignorant peasant worthy of the name would stick a pitchfork in such a 4 armed monstrosity


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Two double weapons should work, as long as you are using them as double weapons. (Obviously you get extra attacks from the weapons.)

Don't be misleading. Double weapons do not grant extra attacks. They let you hold a single object that is treated specially for the purpose of fighting with multiple weapons. You still only get your normal iterative attacks plus a single off-hand attack regardless of how many ready weapons you have, with additional off-hand attacks only coming from the Improved and Greater TWF feats.


Kazaan wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Two double weapons should work, as long as you are using them as double weapons. (Obviously you get extra attacks from the weapons.)
Don't be misleading. Double weapons do not grant extra attacks. They let you hold a single object that is treated specially for the purpose of fighting with multiple weapons. You still only get your normal iterative attacks plus a single off-hand attack regardless of how many ready weapons you have, with additional off-hand attacks only coming from the Improved and Greater TWF feats.

Ha! Sorry, just a typo.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

I'm really starting to hate vestigial arms, mostly because nothing but trouble ever comes from anyone wanting to use them.


I don't really have a problem with vestigial arms, or find them that confusing. They don't add extra attacks; they simply (can) grant you more options to use with your normal iterative attacks.


Actually through further independent research, YOU CAN NOT TWF if you have vestigial arms, because TWF becomes MWF which does not allow for the other TWF feats.... and you can attack with two two-handed weapons, treating the other one as an off-hand weapon

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

It's easy.

The number of attacks you can make, is the same, with, or without, the Vestigial Arms.

Is the number the same? Then you are fine.

So, you want to fight with two double weapons?

Then the number of attacks you can make, is the same as any other PC.

That's it.


Dustyboy wrote:
Actually through further independent research, YOU CAN NOT TWF if you have vestigial arms, because TWF becomes MWF which does not allow for the other TWF feats.... and you can attack with two two-handed weapons, treating the other one as an off-hand weapon

Specific trumps general. Generally speaking, a creature with more than 2 arms falls under MWF. But Vestigial Arms overrides this general rule by saying that you don't get extra attacks from the additional limbs. If you want to rationalize this "in-character", it's the difference in brain development between a creature with additional limbs all its life vs a creature with a brain developed to manage two arms and suddenly finding itself with more than two arms; you can't properly coordinate them well enough to get additional off-hand attacks. From a mechanic perspective, it's a balancing mechanism because additional off-hand attacks are, according to the dev team, significant mechanical elements not to be given lightly.


Dustyboy wrote:

The definite is thatyoou ONLY GET TWO ATTACKS (three with improved and four with greater)

of course you get you normal iterations as well.
the FAQ also states that added natural attacks to the hands, such as through feral mutagen, will not add extra attacks.

Like a clawed kobold with vestigial arms and feral mutagen still only gets two claw attacks.

This isn't true though. All you need is 4 attacks and you CAN use 4 claws on that kobold. For instance that kobold can make two weapon attacks + 2 claws = 4 attacks. For the weapon attacks take unarmed, boot blades, armor spikes, ect that don't need hands. Trade weapon attacks for claws! Now your kobold has 4 claw attacks...

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Claxon wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

That's still just two attacks.

Surprisingly, two equals two.

Unless you can point out somewhere were it's explicitly allowed were at an impasse I guess. The way I understand the rules is if you couldn't do it with two hands, you can't do it with vestigial arms.

We both know that FAQ is a horrible mess in the first place BBT.

Yes, it is a mess.

It doesn't say exactly what you think it says though.

Wrong FAQ BBT.

FAQ wrote:


Alchemist, Tentacle/Vestigial Arm: What does "extra attacks" mean for these discoveries?

It means "extra," as in "more than you would be able to make if you didn't have that discovery."

For example, if you're low-level alchemist who uses two-weapon fighting, you can normally make two attacks per round (one with each weapon). If you take the tentacle discovery, on your turn you can make
* two weapon attacks but no tentacle attack,
* a weapon attack with your left hand plus a secondary tentacle attack, or
* a weapon attack with your right hand plus a secondary tentacle attack.
At no time can you make a left hand weapon attack, a right hand weapon attack, and a tentacle attack on the same turn because the tentacle discovery says it "does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round." This language is calling out that the tentacle is not a standard natural weapon and doesn't follow the standard rules for using natural weapons (which would normally allow you to make the natural weapon attack in addition to your other attacks).

Likewise, if you instead took the vestigial arm discovery and put a weapon in that arm's hand, on your turn you can make
* a weapon attack with your left hand and one with your right hand,
* a weapon attack with your right hand and one with your vestigial arm, or
* a weapon attack with your left hand and one with your vestigial arm,
At no time can you make a left hand weapon attack, a right hand weapon attack, and a vestigial hand weapon attack on the same turn because the vestigial arm discovery says it "does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round."
The exact same restrictions would apply if your race had claws or you had some other ability to add claws to your limbs: the text of both discoveries says they do not give you any extra attacks per round, whether used as natural weapons, wielding manufactured weapons, or adding natural weapons to a limb that didn't originally have natural weapons.

Remember that these two discoveries do not have any level requirements, and therefore are not especially powerful; permanently adding additional attacks per round is beyond the scope of a discovery available to 2nd-level alchemists.

—Pathfinder Design Team, 11/06/13

FAQ

Just to reiterate it for graystone above:

"The exact same restrictions would apply if your race had claws or you had some other ability to add claws to your limbs: the text of both discoveries says they do not give you any extra attacks per round, whether used as natural weapons, wielding manufactured weapons, or adding natural weapons to a limb that didn't originally have natural weapons."


If you want to pump out a lot of attacks in a round just be a magus with a 3 level monk dip and make a natural attack build

the natural attack magus is the most brutal thing i've ever seen


Dustyboy wrote:

If you want to pump out a lot of attacks in a round just be a magus with a 3 level monk dip and make a natural attack build

the natural attack magus is the most brutal thing i've ever seen

That's because it's illegal. A Magus can only make attacks with a single, hand-associated weapon during Spell Combat so you can't do Claw/Claw/Bite/Tail; you can only make a single attack with only one claw, slam, or other hand-associated natural attack in conjunction with your spell (which I presume you're using a touch spell).

If you want lots of attacks, Monk w/ FoB and Medusa's Wrath against a foe rendered flat-footed via Shatter Defenses, plus Haste bonus attack.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Kazaan wrote:
Dustyboy wrote:

If you want to pump out a lot of attacks in a round just be a magus with a 3 level monk dip and make a natural attack build

the natural attack magus is the most brutal thing i've ever seen

That's because it's illegal. A Magus can only make attacks with a single, hand-associated weapon during Spell Combat so you can't do Claw/Claw/Bite/Tail; you can only make a single attack with only one claw, slam, or other hand-associated natural attack in conjunction with your spell (which I presume you're using a touch spell).

If you want lots of attacks, Monk w/ FoB and Medusa's Wrath against a foe rendered flat-footed via Shatter Defenses, plus Haste bonus attack.

It can work if you use a spell that allow multiple touches.

Round 1: cast frostbite, chill touch or one of the other similar spells move and deliver the first touch will spellstrike
Round 2: full attack, using as many attacks as you can delivering frostbite with each successful attack.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
Dustyboy wrote:

If you want to pump out a lot of attacks in a round just be a magus with a 3 level monk dip and make a natural attack build

the natural attack magus is the most brutal thing i've ever seen

That's because it's illegal. A Magus can only make attacks with a single, hand-associated weapon during Spell Combat so you can't do Claw/Claw/Bite/Tail; you can only make a single attack with only one claw, slam, or other hand-associated natural attack in conjunction with your spell (which I presume you're using a touch spell).

If you want lots of attacks, Monk w/ FoB and Medusa's Wrath against a foe rendered flat-footed via Shatter Defenses, plus Haste bonus attack.

It can work if you use a spell that allow multiple touches.

Round 1: cast frostbite, chill touch or one of the other similar spells move and deliver the first touch will spellstrike
Round 2: full attack, using as many attacks as you can delivering frostbite with each successful attack.

also I never stated i was using the natural attacks for dilivary of the touch spells... Simply put i was using a black temple sword, feral combat training, and a 3 monk dip for scaled fist damage.. (I replaced furry of blows with some AC)

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Two weapon fighting with double weapons via vestigial arms All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.