PFS Ruling Required: Two-Weapon Fighting & Multiweapon Fighting


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 344 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Nevin wrote:
I believe Sean K Reynolds has said it before the Vestigial Arm discovery was intended as a resource to have different options to them as indicated by the example. It was not intended to provide additional arms for combat, but arms to do other things like use potions and other items.

Except the text directly addresses the issue of using two-weapons after taking the discovery. The whole point is that it doesn't change anything. You use TWF and the TWF feat just as normal. So your combat abilities do not change. If you used two-weapons and the TWF feat before taking the discovery nothing changes. You get exactly the same number of attacks with exactly the same bonuses/penalties as before taking the discovery. You don't suddenly loose the reduced penalties when fighting with two-weapons just because you grew another arm.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Nevin wrote:
I believe Sean K Reynolds has said it before the Vestigial Arm discovery was intended as a resource to have different options to them as indicated by the example. It was not intended to provide additional arms for combat, but arms to do other things like use potions and other items.

This might affect the player's overall build, but it doesn't have any bearing on whether or not a PC with extra arms can take the TWF feat. Heck, your interpretation actually goes exactly against what you just said.

A fighter who uses TWF and decides "Hey, if I dip into alchemist, I could hold weapons of three different materials so I'd have more options for my attacks!" seems to be exactly what you're saying SKR's description of the intent is. But under your "interpretation" of how MWF's text applies to PCs who don't have MWF, as soon as that fighter completes his next couple of levels and grows a third arm, suddenly he retroactively loses a feat he already had and effectively loses options because of a class feature he gained.

Shouldn't that tip you off that maybe you're misinterpreting things?

Shadow Lodge

HangarFlying wrote:

Multi-weapon Fighting replaces Two-Weapon Fighting if the race has three or more arms.

The point is moot, though, because there are no three- (or more) armed races that are legal for PFS. Thus, the availability of Multi-weapon Fighting is irrelevant.

The question centers around the Vestigial Arm discovery which I believe is legal in PFS and, taken twice, can give you two additional arms for a total of four arms.

Shadow Lodge

Jiggy wrote:
Andrew Nevin wrote:
I believe Sean K Reynolds has said it before the Vestigial Arm discovery was intended as a resource to have different options to them as indicated by the example. It was not intended to provide additional arms for combat, but arms to do other things like use potions and other items.

This might affect the player's overall build, but it doesn't have any bearing on whether or not a PC with extra arms can take the TWF feat. Heck, your interpretation actually goes exactly against what you just said.

A fighter who uses TWF and decides "Hey, if I dip into alchemist, I could hold weapons of three different materials so I'd have more options for my attacks!" seems to be exactly what you're saying SKR's description of the intent is. But under your "interpretation" of how MWF's text applies to PCs who don't have MWF, as soon as that fighter completes his next couple of levels and grows a third arm, suddenly he retroactively loses a feat he already had and effectively loses options because of a class feature he gained.

Shouldn't that tip you off that maybe you're misinterpreting things?

Or if that same fighter has the two-weapon fighting feat and wants to dip into alchemist so that he can hold a potion of healing in his third hand. Oops but he just lost the ability to use the TWF feat. Sucks to be him.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HangarFlying wrote:
Multi-weapon Fighting replaces Two-Weapon Fighting if the race has three or more arms and takes the Multi-weapon Fighting feat.

fixed that for you. if you don't have the MWF feat, you have no reason to worry about replacing TWF. there is nothing about the text of TWF that stops you from reducing your penalties with two weapons wielded in two hands just because you have more than two. if you wield two weapons in two of your 500 hands, you can still take advantage of TWF. if you pick up another weapon (which you can't do with vestigial arm, but you might have your extra arm from some other source), you can still get the appropriate TWF penalty reduction on two of your hands and the third takes the full -10 or -8. if at some point you qualify for and pick up MWF, it then replaces TWF rather than reducing the penalties to -0/-0/-2/-2/-2... etc.

andrew, i understand that you see our opinions as largely irrelevant, but Jiggy wasn't offering a simple opinion. he was pointing out a lapse in your logic that you apparently refuse to address. you are correct in thinking there are probably some people who agree with you, but until you or any of them can answer why we are applying the text of a feat a character doesn't have to that character, your opinion is illogical.


Andrew Nevin wrote:
I believe Sean K Reynolds has said it before the Vestigial Arm discovery was intended as a resource to have different options to them as indicated by the example. It was not intended to provide additional arms for combat, but arms to do other things like use potions and other items.

Others have said it better, but many here *agree* with you on the bolded part, but that doesn't mean that TWF stops working because of extra arms.

I.e. You're right, but for the wrong reason.

Digital Products Assistant

Removed a post and the replies to it. Leave personal insults out of the conversation.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Nefreet: Could you TWF with two one-handed weapons?
If you have extra hands, could you fight with two one-handed weapons held in extra hands for Str-and-a-half damage?

@Andrew: I think you are misinterpreting the MWF rule, which is just that TWF and MWF cannot be used together. Since vestigial arm won't let you wield extra weapons for extra attacks, MWF wouldn't apply, since it is only for getting more than 2 different attacks with different weapons before iteratives get involved.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

I believe the rules are pretty clear (after a year of debate, that is) that you cannot use Two-Weapon Fighting with two-handed weapons (or two hands on each of two one-handed weapons). Apparently others disagree.

Although I've never encountered one of these four-armed monstrosities in PFS, if I did, I would not allow them those tactics at my table.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

AT LAST! Here is the QUOTE I've been looking for all day (and of course it's too much text for my phone to copy and paste).

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Just so everyone knows:

Neither the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, or the Multiweapon Fighting, give you any additional options, whatsoever.

None.

They both reduce the penalties for something you could always do.

No extra attacks, or additional off-hands, or anything.

They both just reduce penalties.

That's it.

Shadow Lodge

your right this is a moot point and heres why (not sure why noone has brought this up yet)

Multiweapon Fighting is a Feat out of the Beastiary

Additional Resources States

Additional Resources wrote:

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Bestiary

Animal Companions: ankylosaurus, aurochs, brachiosaurus, dire bat, dire rat, dolphin, elasmosaurus, electric eel, elephant/mastodon, frog, goblin dog, hyena, monitor lizard, moray eel, octopus, orca, pteranodon, rhinoceros, roc, squid, stegosaurus, triceratops, and tyrannosaurus; Familiars: all familiars listed on pages 131–133; Feats: none of the feats are legal for play for PCs, animal companions, or familiars unless specifically granted by another legal source. Other: all creatures in this book are legal for polymorph effects (including a druid's wild shape ability) within the boundaries of each spell or ability's parameters.


Wraith235 wrote:

your right this is a moot point and heres why (not sure why noone has brought this up yet)

Multiweapon Fighting is a Feat out of the Beastiary

Additional Resources States

Additional Resources wrote:

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Bestiary

Animal Companions: ankylosaurus, aurochs, brachiosaurus, dire bat, dire rat, dolphin, elasmosaurus, electric eel, elephant/mastodon, frog, goblin dog, hyena, monitor lizard, moray eel, octopus, orca, pteranodon, rhinoceros, roc, squid, stegosaurus, triceratops, and tyrannosaurus; Familiars: all familiars listed on pages 131–133; Feats: none of the feats are legal for play for PCs, animal companions, or familiars unless specifically granted by another legal source. Other: all creatures in this book are legal for polymorph effects (including a druid's wild shape ability) within the boundaries of each spell or ability's parameters.

They have pointed this out, it's just that apparently some people think that feats should determine the capabilities of people without those feats, so they want non-PFS feats to determine what PFS characters can do...

or that's what got from this thread:|

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

ok, but what if a player just doesn't bring his copy of bestiary? it is an additional resource, not considered core assumption for players and if he doesn't have it he can't use its' rules.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8

Nefreet wrote:
AT LAST! Here is the QUOTE I've been looking for all day (and of course it's too much text for my phone to copy and paste).

And yet there are rules items in the CRB that break two of those unwritten rules.

SKR wrote:
• The most damage you can do without TWF is using a 1H or 2H weapon in two hands for x1.5 Str damage, and the most damage you can do with TWF is x1 in the main hand and x.5 in the off-hand (for a total of x1.5 Str added to your weapons), so optimally you're getting no more that x1.5 Str no matter which attack mode you choose.

Double Slice gives you x1 damage with your off-hand weapon.

SKR wrote:
• Because if one character uses 2H weapon and is NOT allowed to make an additional attack with armor spikes or a metal gauntlet because his hands are occupied by his 2H weapon, and a different character uses a 2H weapon and IS allowed to make an additional attack with a metal boot because he's not using his hand, that second character is gaining a game mechanics advantage simply by changing the flavorful description of his extra attack's origin from, and that is not good game design.

A monk using a two-handed monk weapon can flurry with the weapon and his unarmed strike.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

If you read the whole thread (I know, it's a lot) he actually addresses both of those.


Michael Eshleman wrote:
SKR wrote:
• Because if one character uses 2H weapon and is NOT allowed to make an additional attack with armor spikes or a metal gauntlet because his hands are occupied by his 2H weapon, and a different character uses a 2H weapon and IS allowed to make an additional attack with a metal boot because he's not using his hand, that second character is gaining a game mechanics advantage simply by changing the flavorful description of his extra attack's origin from, and that is not good game design.
A monk using a two-handed monk weapon can flurry with the weapon and his unarmed strike.

Such a monk does not get x1.5 Str with that two-handed weapon however. That's somewhat the point.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Majuba wrote:
Michael Eshleman wrote:
SKR wrote:
• Because if one character uses 2H weapon and is NOT allowed to make an additional attack with armor spikes or a metal gauntlet because his hands are occupied by his 2H weapon, and a different character uses a 2H weapon and IS allowed to make an additional attack with a metal boot because he's not using his hand, that second character is gaining a game mechanics advantage simply by changing the flavorful description of his extra attack's origin from, and that is not good game design.
A monk using a two-handed monk weapon can flurry with the weapon and his unarmed strike.
Such a monk does not get x1.5 Str with that two-handed weapon however. That's somewhat the point.

I'm not familiar with the sourcing for that last, pointers?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Flurry of Blows text; you get 1x STR for each attack regardless of handedness.

But this is all getting pretty off-topic; on the subject of the relationship between Multi-Weapon Fighting and Two-Weapon Fighting, the important thing is that a character who does not have a feat is not beholden to that feat's text. Therefore, a character who doesn't have MWF is not subject to MWF's line about replacing TWF.


TetsujinOni wrote:
Majuba wrote:
Michael Eshleman wrote:
SKR wrote:
• Because if one character uses 2H weapon and is NOT allowed to make an additional attack with armor spikes or a metal gauntlet because his hands are occupied by his 2H weapon, and a different character uses a 2H weapon and IS allowed to make an additional attack with a metal boot because he's not using his hand, that second character is gaining a game mechanics advantage simply by changing the flavorful description of his extra attack's origin from, and that is not good game design.
A monk using a two-handed monk weapon can flurry with the weapon and his unarmed strike.
Such a monk does not get x1.5 Str with that two-handed weapon however. That's somewhat the point.
I'm not familiar with the sourcing for that last, pointers?

CRB Flurry of Blows class ability description, not sure the page off the top of my head...


Andrew Nevin wrote:
If the character has more than 2 arms they can not take the FEAT Two-Weapon Fighting they have to take the FEAT Multiweapon Fighting.

If this was true it would be under the Prerequisite catagory. Along with the Dex of 15.

Liberty's Edge

I think the OP is trying to find rules to stop TWF with 2 Two-handed weapons.

When essentially it doesn't matter how many arms you have, you can't do that as you can't TWF with a two-handed weapon.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

As others have said earlier, not being able to use a Feat does not mean it doesn't exist. If this were the case, then a character could ignore the Normal rules in any standard Feat for which he didn't meet the prerequisites, which is nonsense.

The only reason this feat is even in the Bestiary is due to it being quite difficult for a normal player character to have more than two arms.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

YogoZuno wrote:
As others have said earlier, not being able to use a Feat does not mean it doesn't exist. If this were the case, then a character could ignore the Normal rules in any standard Feat for which he didn't meet the prerequisites, which is nonsense.

If the line about replacing TWF were in the "Normal" section of MWF, your comment would be relevant.

But it's not.

It's in the "Special" line. Do PCs have to follow all the rules laid out in the "Special" line of every feat in existence even when they don't have said feats?

To be blunt, pretending that ignoring an un-possessed feat's "Special" line is in any way equivalent to ignoring an un-possessed feat's "Normal" line, is one of the most glaringly-obvious errors I've ever seen someone try to maintain. I'm trying really hard to believe that you've just made an honest mistake here, but something that far out in left field makes it really difficult to do so.


Even if it were in the "normal" line, the "normal' entry on feats is not suppose to introduce new rules. It is intended to remind the reader of possibly-obscure rules that are printed elsewhere (usually in core), to make evaluating the feat easier. If the 'normal' line in a feat contradicts the rules elsewhere, then the 'normal' line is wrong.

Not that that is in any way relevant to this discussion, as the 'normal' line for multiweapon fighting merely redirects to the 'normal' line of TWF.

Sovereign Court

There is no "limb" requirement for the TWF feat. A creature with 5 arms can take that feat and use it when they are attacking with 2 weapons (one in each hand). TWF is a fighting style that allows for 1 additional attack per round with your off - hand weapon. It doesn't matter how many hands you have, who you love or what you look like.

Now if you could take MWF (which you can't in PFS), it would allow additional attacks with additional penalties.

More than anything Jiggy is 100% correct in that feats you don't have cannot limit you. But just based on the merits of the TWF feat, there's nothing stopping a player with 8 arms from taking and using it.

Grand Lodge

Seriously, you are claiming an additional resource must be used by a player, who does not have access to it (and i do know many players who do not own bestiary), is not core assumption for the game or society, and telling a player hey, I know your build and this rule you can't even use says you can't do this? Come on guys, that's a little nuts.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Quote:
I'm trying really hard to believe that you've just made an honest mistake here, but something that far out in left field makes it really difficult to do so.

I honestly believe this is how it should work. The feat itself is written badly. Notwithstanding this, if you look at the context, the intent is relatively clear. If you have two arms, you use TWF. If you have more than 2 arms, you use MWF. The only reason MWF isn't mentioned or present in the Core book is that it isn't required for any standard PC races.

Quote:
not suppose to introduce new rules.

So? Just because it isn't supposed to doesn't mean it can't.

Quote:
(and i do know many players who do not own bestiary)

So, if a player doesn't own a Bestiary, does this mean he's not able to be attacked by creatures from it, since he couldn't possibly know the rules for it ahead of time? Or that he couldn't be affected by special abilities that are only printed in the bestiary, like Whirldwind? That's a little nuts.

Liberty's Edge

Andrew Christian wrote:

I think the OP is trying to find rules to stop TWF with 2 Two-handed weapons.

When essentially it doesn't matter how many arms you have, you can't do that as you can't TWF with a two-handed weapon.

^

This.

This I agree is the point of the thread. Rules discussions on TWF versus MWF are a secondary issue. For PFS, MWF isn't allowed for player characters. So, yeah, the OP used something technically incorrect refute some (IMO) cheese that a local player was trying to get the lactose intollerant to digest. Since this forum is about PFS, why not just focus on pointing him to the ruling that effects PFS play (like Nefreet already did).

While extremely detailed discussions of Pathfinder rules are often meant to be helpful, I find it often 'muddies the waters' such that those wanting to use the illegal brands of cheese see it as, 'hey, not everyone agreed that the GM was right, so that means I should keep using it'.

Perhaps this is a 'glass half-empty'/'lowest common denominator' view of common gamer behavior. I can only say that I come by this view via 25+ years of experience with gamers and their shenanigans. XD

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

TWF. Character feat. Allows TWF at lower pentalties. Also remind the player that the pentilties are different for weapons that are not 1 handed with a light weapon.

MWF. Monster Feat. Allows multiple limbs to attack at lower pentalties. This feat is taken when the monster had more than two attacks that can use weapons. It only takes the place of TWF. This is because TWF specifies two weapons, while MWF mentions more than two.

That is my take.

You could have two arms, or fifty. You can still take TWF. As a character, still can't take MWF.

The cheese with 2-handed weapons in each pair of hands? Yeah... uh, no. The player already knew he was trying to circumvent a limit.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There seems to be two related questions on the table in this thread:
(1) May a creature with more than two arms (such as using an alchemist's Vestigial Arm discovery) wield two-handed weapons with those two arms and use the other arms for other attacks?
(2) May a creature with more than two arms use the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, in particular if this feat was taken before it gained its extra arms?

Question 1
May a creature with more than two arms (such as using an alchemist's Vestigial Arm discovery) wield two-handed weapons with those two arms and use the other arms for other attacks?

For reference, here is the relevant text for Vestigial Arm:

Quote:
Vestigial Arm (Ex): The alchemist gains a new arm (left or right) on his torso. The arm is fully under his control and cannot be concealed except with magic or bulky clothing. The arm does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round, though the arm can wield a weapon and make attacks as part of the alchemist's attack routine (using two-weapon fighting). The arm can manipulate or hold items as well as the alchemist's original arms (for example, allowing the alchemist to use one hand to wield a weapon, another hand to hold a potion, and the third hand to throw a bomb). The arm has its own “hand” and “ring” magic item slots (though the alchemist can still only wear two rings and two hand magic items at a time). An alchemist may take this discovery up to two times.

The bolded section seems to imply that there is no difference between the alchemist's original arms and its virtual arms. It seems natural that it could then use two of its arms (natural or vestigial) to wield a two-handed weapon. (It should be noted that the alchemist can not gain any actions, so he is still limited to two attacks, plus any iterative attacks he may have.)

For more evidence toward this, consider the Witchwyrd from Bestiary 2. For reference, here are the interesting parts of its stat block:

Quote:
Melee ranseur +11/+6 (2d4+4/×3), 2 slams +6 (1d4+1 plus grab) or 4 slams +11 (1d4+3 plus grab)
Quote:
Special Attacks force bolt
Quote:
Feats Deflect Arrows, Great Fortitude, Improved Initiative, Iron Will, Persuasive

Note the ranseur in two of its four hands. Note also the lack of any feats or special attacks which provide for that.

Answer 1
Yes. A creature with more than two arms may wield two-handed weapons with those two arms and use the other arms for other attacks?

Question 2
May a creature with more than two arms use the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, in particular if this feat was taken before it gained its extra arms?

Certainly most creatures who have three or more arms and have reduced penalties to their attacks have either the feats Multiattack or Multiweapon Fighting, or they have a special ability which provides a similar effect.

However, there is at least one example of a creature in a published source with more than two arms and Two-Weapon Fighting:

Rise of the Runelords, Anniversary Edition, p. 36:

The goblin hero Koruvus had the Two-Weapon Fighting feat before he was altered by the Waters of Lamashtu. He subsequently gained an arm, yet maintained use of the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, as can be ascertained by calculating his attack bonuses.

Answer 2
Yes. A creature with more than two arms may use the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, in particular if this feat was taken before it gained its extra arms.

Grand Lodge

Being attacked by and being FORCED to use additional resources are two very different things. I know that it doesn't support the arguement for rules interpretation you want, but a player IS NOT forced to use additional resources for thier character build. And to forstall this from being misimplied, additional resouces are not automatically if I use one additional resource then I have to use all additional resources. I.E. if I use Ultimate Combat to build a character then I don't have to use Ultimate Magic rules for said character.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

talbanus wrote:
Since this forum is about PFS, why not just focus on pointing him to the ruling that effects PFS play (like Nefreet already did).

Maybe because this thread started in the Rules Questions forum?

Liberty's Edge

Jiggy wrote:
talbanus wrote:
Since this forum is about PFS, why not just focus on pointing him to the ruling that effects PFS play (like Nefreet already did).
Maybe because this thread started in the Rules Questions forum?

To thence it should return?

Liberty's Edge

The Fox wrote:

There seems to be two related questions on the table in this thread:

(1) May a creature with more than two arms (such as using an alchemist's Vestigial Arm discovery) wield two-handed weapons with those two arms and use the other arms for other attacks?
(2) May a creature with more than two arms use the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, in particular if this feat was taken before it gained its extra arms?

Question 1
May a creature with more than two arms (such as using an alchemist's Vestigial Arm discovery) wield two-handed weapons with those two arms and use the other arms for other attacks?

For reference, here is the relevant text for Vestigial Arm:

Quote:
Vestigial Arm (Ex): The alchemist gains a new arm (left or right) on his torso. The arm is fully under his control and cannot be concealed except with magic or bulky clothing. The arm does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round, though the arm can wield a weapon and make attacks as part of the alchemist's attack routine (using two-weapon fighting). The arm can manipulate or hold items as well as the alchemist's original arms (for example, allowing the alchemist to use one hand to wield a weapon, another hand to hold a potion, and the third hand to throw a bomb). The arm has its own “hand” and “ring” magic item slots (though the alchemist can still only wear two rings and two hand magic items at a time). An alchemist may take this discovery up to two times.

The bolded section seems to imply that there is no difference between the alchemist's original arms and its virtual arms. It seems natural that it could then use two of its arms (natural or vestigial) to wield a two-handed weapon. (It should be noted that the alchemist can not gain any actions, so he is still limited to two attacks, plus any iterative attacks he may have.)

For more evidence toward this, consider the Witchwyrd from Bestiary 2. For...

Just because monsters can use a two two-handed weapons with 4 arms, does not mean that player characters can. There are many, many situations in which monsters break the standard rules that characters play by.

Silver Crusade

(1) Is there any evidence that the Witchwyrd is breaking the rules?
(2) The Witchwyrd is but an example. Is there any evidence that the vestigial arm cannot take part in wielding a two-handed weapon? The text seems to clearly indicate that it can hold and manipulate objects just as well as the natural arms.

Edit: does anyone know of examples of monsters clearly breaking the rules without it called out in the Special Abilities or Special Qualities?

Silver Crusade

I don't see why PCs wouldn't be able to wield two two-handers with four arms. Especially given the text of the discovery.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

If you read up thread (and the links provided) you'll find plenty of reasons.

Silver Crusade

I still don't see anything specifically prohibiting 2WF with 2Hers.

Silver Crusade

Nefreet wrote:
If you read up thread (and the links provided) you'll find plenty of reasons.

A few posts down from the one you quoted, is THIS ONE where Sean K Reynolds says

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Double Slice has a mechanical cost (you have to pay a feat for it), so that's not just flavor giving you better mechanical results.

which allows for greater mechanical benefit (in this case two-handed weapons with extra arms) if there is an associated mechanical cost (which there certainly is in taking several levels of a class to gain a class ability).

His earlier posts were in response to someone who wanted greater mechanical benefit with no mechanical cost.

Edit: he expands on that later in the thread, HERE.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The problem is that wielding the Two Handed Swords in such a way, using both to attack with in the same action, would not necessarily give the STR bonus as a single weapon with both hands would.

To put it another way, when using a Two-Handed weapon, the character is putting all his force into the swing. He can not do that when trying to wield two at a time.

Keep in mind, when using weapons that are not one handed/Light combo, the penalties are different. What would be the penalties for this? Would Two Weapon Fighting even matter at that point?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

thaX wrote:

The problem is that wielding the Two Handed Swords in such a way, using both to attack with in the same action, would not necessarily give the STR bonus as a single weapon with both hands would.

To put it another way, when using a Two-Handed weapon, the character is putting all his force into the swing. He can not do that when trying to wield two at a time.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here, or even what basis you're working from. Can you clarify your thought process?

Quote:
Keep in mind, when using weapons that are not one handed/Light combo, the penalties are different. What would be the penalties for this? Would Two Weapon Fighting even matter at that point?

The penalties are explicitly laid out in the Two-Weapon Fighting section of the Combat chapter of the Core Rulebook.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Fox wrote:


(2) The Witchwyrd is but an example. Is there any evidence that the vestigial arm cannot take part in wielding a two-handed weapon?

The intent is that you have an extra arm for holding stuff, not to turn you into a double-greatsword-wielding maniac.-SKR

Now for that intent I have to admit that the raw is really, really badly written.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A character has a primary "hand" and a off-"hand". Vestigial arm gives you a new arm but not any more "hands." A light weapon or one-handed weapon can be used in either your primary "hand" or your off-"hand". A two-handed weapon requires both "hands." (CRB pg 141) Therefore, using a two-handed weapon consumes your off-"hand" so it is no longer available for extra attacks.

In this case "hand" is really a measurement of effort and not a physical hand.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Newsflash for the gaming industry: Rules as Intended are a myth. We, as a species, don't have telepathy or clairvoyance, so we can't know what the author intended unless they write it down. Preferably, explicitly. It's like some of these archetypes/power were written by people who have never seen power gaming. Rules as written is all we can go by if we are to all be playing the same game.

If the vestigial limbs were not intended to be used for the use of two two handed weapons, then this needed to be specified, because the entry does speak of wielding weapons. And using two two-handers is NOT gaining extra actions.

Silver Crusade

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Now for that intent I have to admit that the raw is really, really badly written.

Yes, if that is the intent, it is incredibly poorly written.

Sean goes on to write THIS:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

It's number of attacks. It's not tracking natural attacks vs. manufactured weapon attacks.

As the FAQ says: "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."

Nothing in that says you need to be tracking what type of weapon you're making an attack with.

This somewhat contradicts his earlier assertion that using two greatswords goes against the intent.

Personally, I think a very fair and reasonable ruling would be to allow the two greatswords, with the appropriate penalties, but with only full Str bonus on the first attack and 1/2 Str bonus on the second attack. At my table, that's how it would work, barring further clarification.

One last quote from Sean which I think is highly relevant.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
If you still don't get how this works, play a different character.


The Fox wrote:

For more evidence toward this, consider the Witchwyrd from Bestiary 2. For reference, here are the interesting parts of its stat block:

Quote:

Melee ranseur +11/+6 (2d4+4/×3), 2 slams +6 (1d4+1 plus grab) or 4 slams +11 (1d4+3 plus grab)

Special Attacks force bolt

Feats Deflect Arrows, Great Fortitude, Improved Initiative, Iron Will, Persuasive

Note the ranseur in two of its four hands. Note also the lack of any feats or special attacks which provide for that.

Answer 1
Yes. A creature with more than two arms may wield two-handed weapons with those two arms and use the other arms for other attacks?

The Witchwyrd is actually a very poor example for this question. It is wielding only *one* weapon. The rest are natural attacks. It would need TWF to avoid serious penalties if wielding another weapon in one of it's other hands, and MWF to avoid penalties if wielding weapons in all of it's hands.

David Bowles wrote:
Rules as written is all we can go by if we are to all be playing the same game.

Bull. Common sense isn't as uncommon as you think.

Silver Crusade

"Majuba"The Witchwyrd is actually a very poor example for this question. It is wielding only [b wrote:
*one*[/b] weapon. The rest are natural attacks. It would need TWF to avoid serious penalties if wielding another weapon in one of it's other hands, and MWF to avoid penalties if wielding weapons in all of it's hands.

I was addressing the two questions separately.


David Bowles wrote:

Newsflash for the gaming industry: Rules as Intended are a myth. We, as a species, don't have telepathy or clairvoyance, so we can't know what the author intended unless they write it down. Preferably, explicitly. It's like some of these archetypes/power were written by people who have never seen power gaming. Rules as written is all we can go by if we are to all be playing the same game.

If the vestigial limbs were not intended to be used for the use of two two handed weapons, then this needed to be specified, because the entry does speak of wielding weapons. And using two two-handers is NOT gaining extra actions.

Luckily in this case the rules are written. CRB pg 141 Using two two-handers is not extra actions but is extra effort (which vestigial does not grant).

In a home game you can run it as you wish but PFS is limited to RAW.

(Also, RAI is not a myth. Just because you don't know the intent does not mean there is no intent.)

Sczarni

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

The part you bolded was regarding tracking natural attacks vs. manufactured weapon attacks, and is being taken out of context. I was a part of that debate, and Sean was not referencing 2H weapons at that time.

51 to 100 of 344 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / PFS Ruling Required: Two-Weapon Fighting & Multiweapon Fighting All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.