|
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.
Do you have a source for this? The rules text indicate you can simultaneously swing a sword, throw a bomb, and hold a potion. That seems to be three hands worth of effort.
|
|
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.)
If there's no way to determine something from the printed text, it may as well not exist for the users of the document.
|
|
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.
I did not say he was talking about two-handed weapons, and I left the entire quote in tact so as to avoid it being out of context.
Either the type of weapon matters or it does not. Which is it? I don't really care what the answer is, I just want to know the answer. It is not entirely clear.
Do you have a source for this? The rules text indicate you can simultaneously swing a sword, throw a bomb, and hold a potion. That seems to be three hands worth of effort.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.
Do you mean a source other than the rule book?
Holding a potion requires no effort. If you're referring to an Alchemist's (the class) bombs, then that's a standard action and you would not be able to attack with the sword. If you're referring to an alchemist bomb (the item or an Alchemist with Fast Bombs or whatever the discovery is called) then it's an attack action and could be used while swinging a sword during a full-attack.
|
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.I did not say he was talking about two-handed weapons, and I left the entire quote in tact so as to avoid it being out of context.
Either the type of weapon matters or it does not. Which is it? I don't really care what the answer is, I just want to know the answer. It is not entirely clear.
No, you bolded one statement out of context as evidence for a different argument. Since you may still edit your post, I will kindly ask you to delete it. You are intentionally muddying the argument.
If there's no way to determine something from the printed text, it may as well not exist for the users of the document.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.)
Just because you cannot determine something does not mean there is no way to determine it.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
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).
What's your source for the part I bolded? After all, as you said:
PFS is limited to RAW
So you'll need to show the citation of why Vestigial Arm doesn't grant extra effort if you want it to fit your own definition of what's acceptable for PFS.
|
|
I find the "effort" argument to be a hollow one. It takes two hands for a medium creature to wield a medium 2Her. I find nothing in RAW why the vestigial hands can't be used this way. Is there an explicit ruling about this? If not, the RAW look good to me.
If one of the Pathfinder Designers used it as his reasoning, is it still "hollow"?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One last quote from Sean which I think is highly relevant.
If you still don't get how this works, play a different character.
Which was a backhanded insult that added nothing to the conversation and ignored that NO ONE was in agreement with how it worked , his statements were outright contradictory, and even people that eschew the mechanics for their own characters have to DM for these things.
The problem isn't with one person knowing how it works, its getting two people (the player and the DM) to agree on how they work. I really don't think there's any way to do that with whats available. If I'm the only one reading a rule one way I'll give over, but when 7 people are giving me 7 different possible readings then no... it objectively is unclear.
|
|
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).What's your source for the part I bolded? After all, as you said:
PFS is limited to RAWSo you'll need to show the citation of why Vestigial Arm doesn't grant extra effort if you want it to fit your own definition of what's acceptable for PFS.
Refer to my "AT LAST" link a page or two back.
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).What's your source for the part I bolded? After all, as you said:
PFS is limited to RAWSo you'll need to show the citation of why Vestigial Arm doesn't grant extra effort if you want it to fit your own definition of what's acceptable for PFS.
My source? The discovery I guess. There is no mention that you get an extra off- hand (or primary hand) worth of effort. But I have old books maybe it was changed.
|
|
I find the "effort" argument to be a hollow one. It takes two hands for a medium creature to wield a medium 2Her. I find nothing in RAW why the vestigial hands can't be used this way. Is there an explicit ruling about this? If not, the RAW look good to me.If one of the Pathfinder Designers used it as his reasoning, is it still "hollow"?
Then they should have wrote it down for all the people who don't follow the boards. And there are a ton of them. Come on, extra limbs? They should have KNOWN someone was going to try this.
|
|
One last quote from Sean which I think is highly relevant.
If you still don't get how this works, play a different character.Which was a backhanded insult that added nothing to the conversation and ignored that NO ONE was in agreement with how it worked , his statements were outright contradictory, and even people that eschew the mechanics for their own characters have to DM for these things.
The problem isn't with one person knowing how it works, its getting two people (the player and the DM) to agree on how they work. I really don't think there's any way to do that with whats available. If I'm the only one reading a rule one way I'll give over, but when 7 people are giving me 7 different possible readings then no... it objectively is unclear.
I completely agree with everything in this post.
|
|
Refer to my "AT LAST" link a page or two back.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).What's your source for the part I bolded? After all, as you said:
PFS is limited to RAWSo you'll need to show the citation of why Vestigial Arm doesn't grant extra effort if you want it to fit your own definition of what's acceptable for PFS.
Sean's post that you linked was regarding first level characters without vestigial arms. Do you have a rules citation that demonstrates why vestigial arm doesn't grant extra effort?
I find the "effort" argument to be a hollow one. It takes two hands for a medium creature to wield a medium 2Her. I find nothing in RAW why the vestigial hands can't be used this way. Is there an explicit ruling about this? If not, the RAW look good to me.
You can use your vestigial arms to wield a two handed weapon. You can wield two two handed weapons if you have four arms. You cannot use two handed weapons when using two weapon fighting.
|
|
I find the "effort" argument to be a hollow one. It takes two hands for a medium creature to wield a medium 2Her. I find nothing in RAW why the vestigial hands can't be used this way. Is there an explicit ruling about this? If not, the RAW look good to me.You can use your vestigial arms to wield a two handed weapon. You can wield two two handed weapons if you have four arms. You cannot use two handed weapons when using two weapon fighting.
Proof by strong assertion?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's something to think about: suppose we have a fighter who likes to use a longsword and a buckler so that he can easily switch between "sword and board" (gets the buckler's AC bonus while wielding the longsword one-handed) and two-handing the longsword for extra damage while losing the buckler's AC bonus.
So far, totally legal.
Now, he gets an idea: what if I didn't have to choose? I'll just grow an extra arm so I can two-hand my sword and use a shield at the same time!
So he dips alchemist and grows a third arm.
Does he need to specify which arms are using which pieces of equipment?
He has three arms: left (L), right (R), and vestigial (V). It's glaringly obvious that if his sword is wielded by (LR), he gets two-handed damage. It's also glaringly obvious that he can use a shield in (V). So with his three arms, he can have a shield bonus to AC and two-hand damage bonus on his longsword.
What if he does the same thing, but with the shield in (L) and the sword in (VR)?
According to some (such as Durngrun's "vestigial arms don't grant extra effort" claim), this will give a smaller damage bonus because (V) can't increase the "hands" worth of effort applied to his longsword attacks.
Meaning alchemists would have to specify which arms are using which equipment in order to determine damage bonuses.
Don't you think that if that were the case, it would have been mentioned in the text of Vestigial Arm? Well, it's not. Rather, it says that it's EXACTLY like your natural arms except for not granting any extra attacks or actions. It does NOT say it grants no extra "effort" or any other such thing: just no extra attacks or actions.
----------------------------------
It's easy to look at the "end of the path", where someone's TWFing with a pair of greatswords, and come up with what seems like a good reason to declare it's not legal. But if looking at the ramifications of your claim results in disallowing a bunch of obviously-legal (and obviously-intended) options, then it's time to re-think.
Proof by strong assertion?I find the "effort" argument to be a hollow one. It takes two hands for a medium creature to wield a medium 2Her. I find nothing in RAW why the vestigial hands can't be used this way. Is there an explicit ruling about this? If not, the RAW look good to me.You can use your vestigial arms to wield a two handed weapon. You can wield two two handed weapons if you have four arms. You cannot use two handed weapons when using two weapon fighting.
Well the rule books and Dev quotes weren't working...
|
|
Refer to my "AT LAST" link a page or two back.Sean's post that you linked was regarding first level characters without vestigial arms. Do you have a rules citation that demonstrates why vestigial arm doesn't grant extra effort?
And the "unwritten rule" in Pathfinder (now supported with a FAQ, no less) that states you only have a primary "hand" and a secondary, "off-hand". No amount of extra arms changes this.
Here's something to think about: suppose we have a fighter who likes to use a longsword and a buckler so that he can easily switch between "sword and board" (gets the buckler's AC bonus while wielding the longsword one-handed) and two-handing the longsword for extra damage while losing the buckler's AC bonus.
So far, totally legal.
Now, he gets an idea: what if I didn't have to choose? I'll just grow an extra arm so I can two-hand my sword and use a shield at the same time!
So he dips alchemist and grows a third arm.
Does he need to specify which arms are using which pieces of equipment?
He has three arms: left (L), right (R), and vestigial (V). It's glaringly obvious that if his sword is wielded by (LR), he gets two-handed damage. It's also glaringly obvious that he can use a shield in (V). So with his three arms, he can have a shield bonus to AC and two-hand damage bonus on his longsword.
What if he does the same thing, but with the shield in (L) and the sword in (VR)?
According to some (such as Durngrun's "vestigial arms don't grant extra effort" claim), this will give a smaller damage bonus because (V) can't increase the "hands" worth of effort applied to his longsword attacks.
Meaning alchemists would have to specify which arms are using which equipment in order to determine damage bonuses.
Don't you think that if that were the case, it would have been mentioned in the text of Vestigial Arm? Well, it's not. Rather, it says that it's EXACTLY like your natural arms except for not granting any extra attacks or actions. It does NOT say it grants no extra "effort" or any other such thing: just no extra attacks or actions.
----------------------------------
It's easy to look at the "end of the path", where someone's TWFing with a pair of greatswords, and come up with what seems like a good reason to declare it's not legal. But if looking at the ramifications of your claim results in disallowing a bunch of obviously-legal (and obviously-intended) options,...
You can use vestigial arms they just don't give you extra effort. You can RV your long sword and keep your buckler (or light or heavy) shield on L just fine. You could not RV your long sword and shield bash with L because you're using your off hand on your long sword so it is no longer available for the shield bash.
|
|
And the "unwritten rule" in Pathfinder (now supported with a FAQ, no less) that states you only have a primary "hand" and a secondary, "off-hand". No amount of extra arms changes this.Refer to my "AT LAST" link a page or two back.Sean's post that you linked was regarding first level characters without vestigial arms. Do you have a rules citation that demonstrates why vestigial arm doesn't grant extra effort?
You would still have a primary 2Her and secondary 2Her. I don't see the problem. Two hands becomes the primary hand and two hands becomes the secondary hand.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
My source? The discovery I guess. There is no mention that you get an extra off- hand (or primary hand) worth of effort. But I have old books maybe it was changed.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).What's your source for the part I bolded? After all, as you said:
PFS is limited to RAWSo you'll need to show the citation of why Vestigial Arm doesn't grant extra effort if you want it to fit your own definition of what's acceptable for PFS.
It says that it functions just like your normal arms (except without granting extra attacks/actions). Your normal arms grant an amount of effort per arm.
Therefore, so do the vestigial ones.
There are lots of things that your arms can do that Vestigial Arm doesn't explicitly list as being doable with the extra arm; it covers all these categorically by saying it works just like your normal arms.
By merit of the most basic level of logic and reading comprehension, the vestigial arm provides everything that a normal arm provides except that which is explicitly listed as NOT being provided.
You would still have a primary 2Her and secondary 2Her. I don't see the problem. Two hands becomes the primary hand and two hands becomes the secondary hand.And the "unwritten rule" in Pathfinder (now supported with a FAQ, no less) that states you only have a primary "hand" and a secondary, "off-hand". No amount of extra arms changes this.Refer to my "AT LAST" link a page or two back.Sean's post that you linked was regarding first level characters without vestigial arms. Do you have a rules citation that demonstrates why vestigial arm doesn't grant extra effort?
So vestigial arms can make four attacks? Two primary and two off hands? If you get extra effort for your two handed weapons why does someone not get extra effort for their light or one handed weapons?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can use your vestigial arms to wield a two handed weapon.
Yep.
You can wield two two handed weapons if you have four arms.
With you so far.
You cannot use two handed weapons when using two weapon fighting.
Why?
-------------------------
Well the rule books and Dev quotes weren't working...
You were making whole lists of assertions and only citing rules for the ones no one was contesting in the first place. Then when people challenge the parts you didn't support with rules, you claim people aren't listening to the rules? That's pretty not-cool.
My source? The discovery I guess. There is no mention that you get an extra off- hand (or primary hand) worth of effort. But I have old books maybe it was changed.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).What's your source for the part I bolded? After all, as you said:
PFS is limited to RAWSo you'll need to show the citation of why Vestigial Arm doesn't grant extra effort if you want it to fit your own definition of what's acceptable for PFS.It says that it functions just like your normal arms (except without granting extra attacks/actions). Your normal arms grant an amount of effort per arm.
Therefore, so do the vestigial ones.
There are lots of things that your arms can do that Vestigial Arm doesn't explicitly list as being doable with the extra arm; it covers all these categorically by saying it works just like your normal arms.
By merit of the most basic level of logic and reading comprehension, the vestigial arm provides everything that a normal arm provides except that which is explicitly listed as NOT being provided.
So even though it explicitly mentions no extra attacks you think it's logical to get extra effort? Again, CRB pg 141, two-handed weapons require your primary and off-hand. Do vestigial arms give you extra primary or off hands? If you can use the extra effort for two handed weapons, why not light and one handed weapons?
You can use your vestigial arms to wield a two handed weapon.Yep.
You can wield two two handed weapons if you have four arms.With you so far.
You cannot use two handed weapons when using two weapon fighting.Why?
-------------------------
Well the rule books and Dev quotes weren't working...You were making whole lists of assertions and only citing rules for the ones no one was contesting in the first place. Then when people challenge the parts you didn't support with rules, you claim people aren't listening to the rules? That's pretty not-cool.
I'm not sure how to explain this better. What part do you not understand? (Not trying to be insulting, just clarifying). Have you read the rules section I keep quoting? Do you understand that two handed weapons require your primary hand and off hand? Do you realize these terms are not tied to your physical hands? Do you think vestigial arms give you an extra primary or off hand?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So even though it explicitly mentions no extra attacks you think it's logical to get extra effort?
Yes, because that's what it says. It says you get everything except extra attacks/actions. Therefore, you get everything except extra attacks/actions. Because that's what it says.
Again, CRB pg 141, two-handed weapons require your primary and off-hand.
No, the CRB says you need two physical hands. It's the FAQ and posts from SKR that talk about a 2H weapon using up "primary" and "off" "hands" worth of effort, not the CRB.
Do vestigial arms give you extra primary or off hands?
If your normal arms do, then so do the vestigial ones. Because that's what it says.
If you can use the extra effort for two handed weapons, why not light and one handed weapons?
Because doing so would involve extra attacks, which the rules text explicitly forbids. Because that's what it says.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I'm not sure how to explain this better. What part do you not understand? (Not trying to be insulting, just clarifying). Have you read the rules section I keep quoting? Do you understand that two handed weapons require your primary hand and off hand? Do you realize these terms are not tied to your physical hands? Do you think vestigial arms give you an extra primary or off hand?
Again, CRB pg 141, two-handed weapons require your primary and off-hand.No, the CRB says you need two physical hands. It's the FAQ and posts from SKR that talk about a 2H weapon using up "primary" and "off" "hands" worth of effort, not the CRB.
Well at least I see the problem now. I understand how you can read that section and think it is only referring to physical hands (although I would like to point out the section is labeled effort). However if the FAQ and SKR cannot convince you it means "effort" and not "physical" hands then I'm certainly not going too. I believe we are at an impasse.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
However if the FAQ and SKR cannot convince you it means "effort" and not "physical" hands then I'm certainly not going too.
Aaaaaand you still don't understand which point we disagree on, as I'm fully on board with the above. What's your response to the rest of my post?
EDIT:
Also, one more thing:
I would like to point out the section is labeled effort
No, it's not. I don't know what you're looking at, but what I see is "Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapons" as a subheading of "Weapons".
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@Nefreet (and maybe Durngrun too?) - The CRB feat Double Slice gets you an extra "hand" worth of damage; effectively, you now have a primary "hand" and two off "hands" for determining the damage of the weapons you wield.
SKR explicitly acknowledges that the cost (spending a feat) is a perfectly legitimate reason to have more "hands" worth of effort/damage.
Why does the same not apply to feat-like class features such as Vestigial Arm?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However if the FAQ and SKR cannot convince you it means "effort" and not "physical" hands then I'm certainly not going too.Aaaaaand you still don't understand which point we disagree on. What's your response to the rest of my post?
That's it mainly. Your vestigial arms can do anything your regular arms do, you are however still bound to the rules of the game.
You cannot attack with a two handed weapon and another weapon (using two weapon fighting) regardless of vestigial arm or not.
So if I cannot wield a greatsword and attack with armor spikes,
But you can wield two greatswords, you are getting an extra attack.
Which is against the rules.
You can hold two greatswords, you could attack with either one (either alternating by round or extra attacks from BAB), but you cannot attack with both at the same time.
Am I missing anything?
@Nefreet (and maybe Durngrun too?) - The CRB feat Double Slice gets you an extra "hand" worth of damage; effectively, you now have a primary "hand" and two off "hands" for determining the damage of the weapons you wield.
SKR explicitly acknowledges that the cost (spending a feat) is a perfectly legitimate reason to have more "hands" worth of effort/damage.
Why does the same not apply to feat-like class features such as Vestigial Arm?
What? No it doesn't. It gives you full strength on your off hand attack instead of half strength. It doesn't give you extra hands. Would you let someone with double slice take two off hand attacks?
|
|
Let me try and point something out that seems to have not been discussed. The word vestigial is the adjective of vestige. Let's take a look at the definition of vestige:
Vestige: a bodily part or organ that is small and degenerate or imperfectly developed in comparison to one more fully developed in an earlier stage of the individual, in a past generation, or in closely related formsThere's a reason why they specifically called the ability"vestigial" arm and not "extra" arm. By design, it should not be granting any strength bonus to any attacks or allow one to "don" a shield for benefit or wield any weapons. It should not provide alternative primary and off hands. The arm should function similar to a prehensile tail sans the feat that allows swift retrieval. Based on SKR's statements, that's what he originally intended.
So we need to specify which arm a weapon is in? A vestigial arm does not allow us to wield a weapon? Because that is not what the ability says. It says the opposite, in fact.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
You cannot attack with a two handed weapon and another weapon (using two weapon fighting) regardless of vestigial arm or not.
So if I cannot wield a greatsword and attack with armor spikes,
But you can wield two greatswords, you are getting an extra attack.
Which is against the rules.
It's not an extra attack, and here's why:
What if we each have two longswords instead? You have each one wielded in one hand, I have each one wielded in two hands.
Same number of attacks, so where's the illegality?
You've made a disanalogy that's got you thinking there's an extra attack when there's not.
Both the fighter and the alchemist can make two attacks via TWF. The alchemist is just using beefier weapons to make the same number of attacks. The alchemist isn't getting extra attacks, he's getting extra options of what weapons he can use for the SAME attacks. The fighter has certain weapons that aren't an option for his two attacks, while the alchemist has reduced those restrictions through the cost of class features. But they both get two attacks.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
What? No it doesn't. It gives you full strength on your off hand attack instead of half strength. It doesn't give you extra hands. Would you let someone with double slice take two off hand attacks?@Nefreet (and maybe Durngrun too?) - The CRB feat Double Slice gets you an extra "hand" worth of damage; effectively, you now have a primary "hand" and two off "hands" for determining the damage of the weapons you wield.
SKR explicitly acknowledges that the cost (spending a feat) is a perfectly legitimate reason to have more "hands" worth of effort/damage.
Why does the same not apply to feat-like class features such as Vestigial Arm?
Why do you keep equating extra "hands" with extra attacks?
Vestigial Arms don't grant extra attacks, but that doesn't inherently mean they can't grant extra "hands" worth of damage/effort on existing attacks. Double Slice gives you an extra "hand" worth of damage/effort on an existing attack, but does not give you an extra attack.
Heck, you've even pointed out yourself that a two-handed weapon uses both the primary and off "hand"; surely you don't think a two-handed attack is actually two attacks, do you?
|
|
You cannot attack with a two handed weapon and another weapon (using two weapon fighting) regardless of vestigial arm or not.
So if I cannot wield a greatsword and attack with armor spikes,
But you can wield two greatswords, you are getting an extra attack.
Which is against the rules.It's not an extra attack, and here's why:
What if we each have two longswords instead? You have each one wielded in one hand, I have each one wielded in two hands.
And in both cases, it is reasonable to get 1xStr damage for the first attack and 0.5xStr damage for the second attack. This, I think, is a reasonable compromise between the two interpretations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You cannot attack with a two handed weapon and another weapon (using two weapon fighting) regardless of vestigial arm or not.
So if I cannot wield a greatsword and attack with armor spikes,
But you can wield two greatswords, you are getting an extra attack.
Which is against the rules.It's not an extra attack, and here's why:
What if we each have two longswords instead? You have each one wielded in one hand, I have each one wielded in two hands.
Same number of attacks, so where's the illegality?
You've made a disanalogy that's got you thinking there's an extra attack when there's not.
Both the fighter and the alchemist can make two attacks via TWF. The alchemist is just using beefier weapons to make the same number of attacks. The alchemist isn't getting extra attacks, he's getting extra options of what weapons he can use for the SAME attacks. The fighter has certain weapons that aren't an option for his two attacks, while the alchemist has reduced those restrictions through the cost of class features. But they both get two attacks.
Essentially, you're wrong. But again if the core rule book, FAQ, and SKR don't convince you, I'm certainly not. I fully understand your reasoning (and honestly I allow it in my home games) but by the rules you are wrong.
|
|
You cannot attack with a two handed weapon and another weapon (using two weapon fighting) regardless of vestigial arm or not.
So if I cannot wield a greatsword and attack with armor spikes,
But you can wield two greatswords, you are getting an extra attack.
Which is against the rules.It's not an extra attack, and here's why:
What if we each have two longswords instead? You have each one wielded in one hand, I have each one wielded in two hands.
Same number of attacks, so where's the illegality?
You've made a disanalogy that's got you thinking there's an extra attack when there's not.
Both the fighter and the alchemist can make two attacks via TWF. The alchemist is just using beefier weapons to make the same number of attacks. The alchemist isn't getting extra attacks, he's getting extra options of what weapons he can use for the SAME attacks. The fighter has certain weapons that aren't an option for his two attacks, while the alchemist has reduced those restrictions through the cost of class features. But they both get two attacks.
Essentially, you're wrong. But again if the core rule book, FAQ, and SKR don't convince you, I'm certainly not. I fully understand your reasoning (and honestly I allow it in my home games) but by the rules you are wrong.
Where is he wrong? What part? If you can wield two longswords with two hands, can I wield two longswords with four hands?