| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
this subject was brought up in another thread and figured it needed its own so as not to confuse it with the original subject.
the question is can a race such as the Kasatha, which naturally has 4 arms, wield 4 weapons at once and attack with all of them in a single round. (one being a primary hand and the other 3 being off-hands)?
and if so, is this race subject to taking Multi-Weapon Fighting instead of Two-Weapon Fighting since MWF isn't a player class feat.
also, if it DOES have to take MWF, does it then qualify for improved/greater TWF since there is no improved/greater MWF? or would it never be able to get those additional off-hand attacks?
if it CAN take improved/greater TWF, do these feats apply to ALL off-hands? or just one? if just one, can they be taken multiple times, each time applying to a different off-hand?
|
Yes, it can wield four weapons, one primary and three off-hand.
Because it has three or more arms, it takes the multiweapon fighting feat. You can look at it as either two-weapon fighting isn't a valid choice or if it chooses TWF, it automatically changes to MWF. Either way, the result is the same.
Because it has MWF instead of TWF, it would not qualify for the imp or greater TWF feats. The Kasatha will never get any more off-hand attacks, but this is offset by the fact that it gets all of it's off-hand attacks up front (and that each off -hand attack can be with a different type of weapon).
So, MWF is just a rush in the TWF feat-tree for 4-armed characters ?
That's... satisfying in a way: Less potential cheese, you still avoid a big tax on Dex...
But RAW seems to be more permissive:
Multiweapon Fighting (Combat)
This multi-armed creature is skilled at making attacks with multiple weapons.Prerequisites: Dex 13, three or more hands.
Benefit: Penalties for fighting with multiple weapons are reduced by –2 with the primary hand and by –6 with off hands.
Normal: A creature without this feat takes a –6 penalty on attacks made with its primary hand and a –10 penalty on attacks made with all of its off hands. (It has one primary hand, and all the others are off hands.) See Two-Weapon Fighting in the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook.
Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms
Improved Two-Weapon Fighting (Combat)
You are skilled at fighting with two weapons.Prerequisites: Dex 17, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with it, albeit at a –5 penalty.
Normal: Without this feat, you can only get a single extra attack with an off-hand weapon.
Greater Two-Weapon Fighting (Combat)
You are incredibly skilled at fighting with two weapons at the same time.Prerequisites: Dex 19, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: You get a third attack with your off-hand weapon, albeit at a –10 penalty.
The problem probably come with that quote:
Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms
1. This feat is considered as TWF for every purpose (including prerequisite)
2. This feat covers the initial use of TWF for a 4-armed character.
=> First interpretation:
Benefice: You can take every feat working with TWF, like "Two-weapon feint" and others.
Potential problem: How do you use iTWF and gTWF ?
Benefit: In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with it, albeit at a –5 penalty.
Benefit: You get a third attack with your off-hand weapon, albeit at a –10 penalty.
RAW, it seems that you gain additional attacks for each arms.
=> Second interpretation:
Benefice: We got all the TWF feat-tree in 1 feat and 13 Dex.
Problem: No Two-weapon feint, shield slam, and other stuff like that, unless you take TWF.
=========
My 2 cents: I don't like both.
I fear the war-machine effect of the 1st interpretation, but taking TWF to go on other branches of TWF seems stupid too.
We probably need an errata or a dev's statement, because in the hand end, we will probably stick to arguing on the intent and the "special" of MWF.
Any creature, whether they have no arms, or twelve, can take the Two-weapon fighting feat.
No, they can't.
Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms.
^
You're reading make me think that the special part is an indication of the intent of the feat, not a pure rule, because of what it imply for a PFS character. Still, it's IMHO, and I sincerely think we need a statement or a revision made by Paizo.
|
Any creature, whether they have no arms, or twelve, can take the Two-weapon fighting feat.No, they can't.
Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms.
As was stated in the other thread. Feats only apply to those that possess those feats. When you don't have a feat the "Normal" line applies, which is just a quick reminder of an already existing rule not a rule in itself. Only when you actually take the feat does the "Special" section apply to you.
So yes any creature regardless of number of arms can take Two-Weapon fighting.
As was stated in the other thread.
What other thread? Link please.
Only when you actually take the feat does the "Special" section apply to you.
Please explain the armor, shield, and weapon proficiency feats then.
|
|
As was stated in the other thread.What other thread? Link please.
The other thread:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qn5d?PFS-Ruling-Required-TwoWeapon-FightingOnly when you actually take the feat does the "Special" section apply to you.Please explain the armor, shield, and weapon proficiency feats then.
Lets use martial weapon proficiency as an example
Martial Weapon Proficiency (Combat)
Choose a type of martial weapon. You understand how to use that type of martial weapon in combat.
Benefit: You make attack rolls with the selected weapon normally (without the non-proficient penalty).
Normal: When using a weapon with which you are not proficient, you take a –4 penalty on attack rolls.
This part is a reiteration of this:
Simple, Martial, and Exotic Weapons: Anybody but a druid, monk, or wizard is proficient with all simple weapons. Barbarians, fighters, paladins, and rangers are proficient with all simple and all martial weapons. Characters of other classes are proficient with an assortment of simple weapons and possibly some martial or even exotic weapons. All characters are proficient with unarmed strikes and any natural weapons possessed by their race. A character who uses a weapon with which he is not proficient takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls.
Special: Barbarians, fighters, paladins, and rangers are proficient with all martial weapons. They need not select this feat.
You can gain Martial Weapon Proficiency multiple times. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon.
The part about classes not needing the feat is simply a reiteration of the rules already stated in each class description. The bold section only applies to those who take the feat. Only those who take the feat gain proficiency.
|
|
You guys are now having the same argument across multiple threads. Please quit it. Until a dev weighs in, neither of you are totally and completely wrong.
That is the craziest thing I have ever heard. No one is right or wrong until a Dev weighs in regardless of how clear the RAW is? That would mean anyone can claim anything that contradicts what is written and unless a Dev comes here and says otherwise they are considered equally right as everyone else.
If you don't like the discussions and threads on this topic how about just not reading them rather than attempt to stop everyone else from participating.
|
|
^
You're reading make me think that the special part is an indication of the intent of the feat, not a pure rule, because of what it imply for a PFS character. Still, it's IMHO, and I sincerely think we need a statement or a revision made by Paizo.
Repeat after me: "There are no legal PFS races which qualify for the Multiweapon Fighting feat".
Repeat after me: "There are no legal PFS races which qualify for the Multiweapon Fighting feat".^
You're reading make me think that the special part is an indication of the intent of the feat, not a pure rule, because of what it imply for a PFS character. Still, it's IMHO, and I sincerely think we need a statement or a revision made by Paizo.
Not everyone plays PFS....that's hwy I started the thread. Home games and the like needs clarification on this subject...
|
|
Any creature, whether they have no arms, or twelve, can take the Two-weapon fighting feat.No, they can't.
Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms.As was stated in the other thread. Feats only apply to those that possess those feats. When you don't have a feat the "Normal" line applies, which is just a quick reminder of an already existing rule not a rule in itself. Only when you actually take the feat does the "Special" section apply to you.
So yes any creature regardless of number of arms can take Two-Weapon fighting.
And if that creature has three or more arms, the Two-Weapon Fighting feat is replaced by the Multiweapon Fighting feat. This isn't a situation where a Kasatha takes TWF at 1st level and then MWF at 3rd level. What happens is that if a Kasatha takes TWF at 1st level, it is replaced by MWF at 1st level...because that is what the MWF feat says happens. It's written in plain English. There are no tricks or hidden meanings in the wording.
|
|
Not everyone plays PFS....that's hwy I started the thread. Home games and the like needs clarification on this subject...Repeat after me: "There are no legal PFS races which qualify for the Multiweapon Fighting feat".^
You're reading make me think that the special part is an indication of the intent of the feat, not a pure rule, because of what it imply for a PFS character. Still, it's IMHO, and I sincerely think we need a statement or a revision made by Paizo.
And my response wasn't directed at your non-PFS question, rather, it was directed at the comment about implication for PFS...which is ultimately irrelevant because there is no legal way for a PFS character to get the MWF feat.
|
|
There are lots of feats that have TWF as a prerequisite, not just ITWF and GTWF. If you say that MWF doesn't satisfy the prerequisite for ITWF and GTWF, then you're saying that a 4-armed race such as Kathasa also can't take the following, which all list TWF as a prequisite:
Bashing Finish
Break Guard
Dorn-Dergar Master
Double Bane
Double Slice
ITWF
- Improved Two-Weapon Feint
- GTWF
- Two-Weapon Rend
--- Improved Two-Weapon Rend
Net and Trident
Pinpoint Poisoner (if you don't have FoB)
Shield Slam
- Shield Master
Two-Weapon Defense
Two-Weapon FeintThose would all be off-limits for races that use MWF instead of TWF, if you believe that you don't just sub in MWF in place of TWF for the purpose of all prerequisites. Needless to say, simple common sense says that, given the two possible readings, making the replacement in the prereqs is obviously the more reasonable option.
And I would say that that is the price one pays for getting so many extra off-hand attacks stacked so early in a character's development. If they want access to those feats, they should probably play a "normal" race instead.
I noticed that we got really off topic, so let's refocus.
1. the question is can a race such as the Kasatha, which naturally has 4 arms, wield 4 weapons at once and attack with all of them in a single round. (one being a primary hand and the other 3 being off-hands)?
2. and if so, is this race subject to taking Multi-Weapon Fighting instead of Two-Weapon Fighting since MWF isn't a player class feat.
3. also, if it DOES have to take MWF, does it then qualify for improved/greater TWF since there is no improved/greater MWF? or would it never be able to get those additional off-hand attacks?
4. if it CAN take improved/greater TWF, do these feats apply to ALL off-hands? or just one? if just one, can they be taken multiple times, each time applying to a different off-hand?
This multi-armed creature is skilled at making attacks with multiple weapons.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, three or more hands.
Benefit: Penalties for fighting with multiple weapons are reduced by –2 with the primary hand and by –6 with off hands.
Normal: A creature without this feat takes a –6 penalty on attacks made with its primary hand and a –10 penalty on attacks made with all of its off hands. (It has one primary hand, and all the others are off hands.) See Two-Weapon Fighting in the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook.
Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms.
You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the secondary weapon.
Prerequisite: Dex 15.
Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. See Two-Weapon Fighting in Combat.
Normal: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way you suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand. If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light.
1) Yes.
2) Yes. MWF replaces TWF for creatures with more then two arms.3) Yes. MWF replaces TWF so it should count as TWF for prerequisites.
4) Not entirely sure. I think you would just get one extra attack with one of your off hands with improved, and then another attack with greater.
My own question: 5. These feats do almost exactly the same thing. Why would you NOT want to take MFW if you have more than two arms?
|
|
And if that creature has three or more arms, the Two-Weapon Fighting feat is replaced by the Multiweapon Fighting feat. This isn't a situation where a Kasatha takes TWF at 1st level and then MWF at 3rd level. What happens is that if a Kasatha takes TWF at 1st level, it is replaced by MWF at 1st level...because that is what the MWF feat says happens. It's written in plain English. There are no tricks or hidden meanings in the wording.Any creature, whether they have no arms, or twelve, can take the Two-weapon fighting feat.No, they can't.
Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms.As was stated in the other thread. Feats only apply to those that possess those feats. When you don't have a feat the "Normal" line applies, which is just a quick reminder of an already existing rule not a rule in itself. Only when you actually take the feat does the "Special" section apply to you.
So yes any creature regardless of number of arms can take Two-Weapon fighting.
No that is not what the MWF feat says happens. The MWF feat says when you take that feat it replaces TWF. If you don't take the feat then it doesn't replace TWF.
Just like every other feat what it says happens only happens when you take the feat. If you never take MWF then MWF never replaces anything for you.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You guys are now having the same argument across multiple threads. Please quit it. Until a dev weighs in, neither of you are totally and completely wrong.That is the craziest thing I have ever heard. No one is right or wrong until a Dev weighs in regardless of how clear the RAW is? That would mean anyone can claim anything that contradicts what is written and unless a Dev comes here and says otherwise they are considered equally right as everyone else.
If you don't like the discussions and threads on this topic how about just not reading them rather than attempt to stop everyone else from participating.
I didn't say "no one is right or wrong until a dev weighs in regardless of blah blah" at all. I actually fully believe that one of you is correct, but i'm not going to cast my vote because it won't mean anything. Obviously neither of you will accept any arguments until one of the devs says that it works one way or the other. If you would, then this argument wouldn't have filled up one thread and bled out into another. That's all I'm saying: neither of you will win this argument until there's a dev ruling.
We get it , you both think you are right and the other is wrong and refuse to change your stance. If you aren't going to shut up about it could you at least try to keep it to one thread?
Nowhere does it say that TWF is a prerequisite for MWF. You could take MWF at level 1.
We get it , you both think you are right and the other is wrong and refuse to change your stance. If you aren't going to shut up about it could you at least try to keep it to one thread?
This thread is slightly different. Besides, the other one deteriorated into everyone yelling at BBT, which, I'm surprised, this one has not...yet.
|
|
1) Yes.
2) Yes. MWF replaces TWF for creatures with more then two arms.
3) Yes. MWF replaces TWF so it should count as TWF for prerequisites.
4) Not entirely sure. I think you would just get one extra attack with one of your off hands with improved, and then another attack with greater.
My own question: 5. These feats do almost exactly the same thing. Why would you NOT want to take MFW if you have more than two arms?
You still insist on saying that MWF replaces TWF for creatures with more than two arms even if they have not taken this feat.
No one has yet answered how a feat is applying any effect to someone who doesn't take that feat. Show me one other feat that works like you claim this one does. Show me one other feat that says replace this with that where the replacement applies without taking the feat.
I didn't say "no one is right or wrong until a dev weighs in regardless of blah blah" at all.
Ummm..that is exactly what you said.
Until a dev weighs in, neither of you are totally and completely wrong.
The point is that someone is totally and completely wrong. That would be the people who argue that unlike every other feat in the rules MWF applies to people who haven't taken it. Feats apply their changes to those who take them. I can provide example after example of that. Those who claim otherwise have not been able to provide one single example to the contrary.
True, I was a little overly aggressive in my tone there, I apologize. The base argument boils down to if MWF replaces TWF before you take the feat. Personally I think it does, but I also don't see any reason why it should matter one way or the other so who cares.
EDIT: cept the original issue with mr 4 arm race in PFS, which is there own fault for digging that hole without addressing it properly, Faq and move on from this circle.
EDIT AGAIN: I r spell good.
|
|
We get it , you both think you are right and the other is wrong and refuse to change your stance. If you aren't going to shut up about it could you at least try to keep it to one thread?
If this is directed at me. I didn't start this thread and I had not been active in the other thread in a while. Another thread popped up on the topic so I responded.
Again if you don't like the topic of a thread then don't read it. Don't come onto the thread and whine about its existence or the fact that people continue to argue their points. No one is forcing you to read it.
You still insist on saying that MWF replaces TWF for creatures with more than two arms even if they have not taken this feat.
No one has yet answered how a feat is applying any effect to someone who doesn't take that feat. Show me one other feat that works like you claim this one does. Show me one other feat that says replace this with that where the replacement applies without taking the feat.
With that logic, show me another feat that says it is of no use against a character who is the subject of a blink spell.
Yes, this is the only feat that says replace this with that if blah.No one has answered my question, why would you ever not take MWF and take TWF if you qualify for MWF?
|
|
You still insist on saying that MWF replaces TWF for creatures with more than two arms even if they have not taken this feat.
No one has yet answered how a feat is applying any effect to someone who doesn't take that feat. Show me one other feat that works like you claim this one does. Show me one other feat that says replace this with that where the replacement applies without taking the feat.With that logic, show me another feat that says it is of no use against a character who is the subject of a blink spell.
Yes, this is the only feat that says replace this with that if blah.
No one has answered my question, why would you ever not take MWF and take TWF if you qualify for MWF?
There are other feats that say replace this with that.
Arcane Armor Mastery (Combat)
You have mastered the ability to cast spells while wearing armor.
Prerequisites: Arcane Armor Training, Medium Armor Proficiency, caster level 7th.
Benefit: As a swift action, reduce the arcane spell failure chance due to the armor you are wearing by 20% for any spells you cast this round. This bonus replaces, and does not stack with, the bonus granted by Arcane Armor Training.
Now does this bonus replace the one from Arcane Armor Training for everyone or only for those that take Arcane Armor Mastery? Of course we understand it only replaces the original bonus when someone takes this feat. Likewise, when MWF says it replaces TWF it means for those that have taken the feat.
That's a benefit, not a special. Yes, there are a ton of feats that are "upgrades" of other feats or abilities.
TWF is NOT a prerequisite for MWF. It isn't even a different benefit, it just applies to more arms.
|
|
Here is another exmaple:
Improved Stonecunning
Your sense for stonework is uncanny.
Prerequisites: Wis 13, dwarf, stonecunning racial trait.
Benefit: You receive a +4 bonus on Perception checks to notice unusual stonework. This bonus replaces the stonecunning ability's normal bonus on Perception checks.
Does this replace the stonecunning ability's bonus for every single Dwarf or only those that take this feat?
We get it , you both think you are right and the other is wrong and refuse to change your stance. If you aren't going to shut up about it could you at least try to keep it to one thread?If this is directed at me. I didn't start this thread and I had not been active in the other thread in a while. Another thread popped up on the topic so I responded.
Again if you don't like the topic of a thread then don't read it. Don't come onto the thread and whine about its existence or the fact that people continue to argue their points. No one is forcing you to read it.
It wasn't directed at you, And spamming topics is against forum rules, And the hypocrisy of your statement amuses me greatly. Good day.
|
|
That's a benefit, not a special. Yes, there are a ton of feats that are "upgrades" of other feats or abilities.
TWF is NOT a prerequisite for MWF. It isn't even a different benefit, it just applies to more arms.
Show me one example of another feat that works like you say MWF does. When a feat says replace this with that it means for those that take the feat. You are claiming that since it is in the Special: line that it applies to everyone with or without the feat. Show me another that works like that.
|
|
Just like every other feat what it says happens only happens when you take the feat. If you never take MWF then MWF never replaces anything for you.Aspect of the Beast
Special: A character that has contracted lycanthropy can take this feat without having to meet the prerequisites. A ranger who selects the natural weapon combat style can take this feat without having to meet the prerequisites (even if he does not select Aspect of the Beast as a bonus feat).If you have to have the feat before the Special applies to you, how can you benefit from the Special line of Aspect of the Beast? Same goes for a Ranger taking Crossbow Mastery or Focused Shot as well as some others. So, the Special line of a feat can apply even if you don't have the feat if it's sensible, such as allowing a Ranger to take the feat sans prerequisites; it would be ridiculous to say you can take the feat without prereqs, but then require you to take the feat with prereqs in order to benefit from the Special line which allows you to take it without prereqs when you already have it. Thus, by the logical principal of Modes Tolens, since we dis-affirm the consequence, we dis-affirm the premise that you must have the feat before the Special line applies to you. Ergo: MWF replaces TWF for creatures with two arms, even if they haven't yet taken it.
Moreover, keep in mind that neither TWF nor MWF let you fight with off-hand weapons. You can do that already without either feat. All they do is lessen the penalties. The Normal line for TWF, referring to the de facto standard two-armed race, says that your penalty for your main-hand weapon is -6 and the penalty for your off-hand weapon is -10. The Normal line for MWF says that the penalty for you main-hand weapon is -6 and that that you have a number of off-hand attacks available at -10 equal the number of arms you have beyond the first.
So a multi-armed character needn't...
Because that line in the special is just like the Prereqs. It applies to the feat itself.
Empower Spell-Like Ability
One of this creature's spell-like abilities is particularly potent and powerful.
Prerequisite: Spell-like ability at caster level 6th or higher.
Benefit: Choose one of the creature's spell-like abilities, subject to the restrictions below. The creature can use that ability as an empowered spell-like ability three times per day (or less, if the ability is normally usable only once or twice per day).
When a creature uses an empowered spell-like ability, all variable, numeric effects of the spell-like ability are increased by half (+50%). Saving throws and opposed rolls are not affected. Spell-like abilities without random variables are not affected.
The creature can only select a spell-like ability duplicating a spell with a level less than or equal to 1/2 its caster level (round down) – 2. For a summary, see the table in the description of the Quicken Spell-Like Ability.
Special: This feat can be taken multiple times. Each time it is taken, the creature can apply it to a different spell-like ability.
Glad to see that the monster feat Empower Spell-Like Ability just became PFS legal for everyone because the Special line says it can be taken and taken multiple times and that applies to everyone by your logic.
|
|
Because that line in the special is just like the Prereqs. It applies to the feat itself.The prereq for Aspect of the Beast lists "see Special". Does that mean that if I just look at it, I qualify? It doesn't change the fact that your assertion was that you have to have the feat in order for the Special to apply to you in the first place. Furthermore, the other two examples I listed don't have "see Special" in their list of Prereqs. It's a pretty clear and explicit counter-example to your assertion; no, you don't inherently have to have the feat on your character for the Special line to apply. Now, in most cases, the point is moot because what the Special line delineates involves having the feat anyway. Furthermore, if some other rules element would prohibit you from taking the feat, you still wouldn't qualify; thus PFS specific rules restricting use of bestiary feats aren't over-ruled by the Special line in Empower SLA specifically overriding the general rule that you can't take a particular feat multiple times.
In your other two examples the Ranger class itself provides the ability to take those feats. The special line is just reiterating existing rules stated in the Ranger class features. Aspect of the Beast specifically calls out the Special in its Prereqs. You have yet to show an example of a special line setting a rule for everyone.
|
Seems to me that a possible houserule could be this:
A 1st level Kasatha can make 4 weapon attacks at -6/-10/-10/-10.
A 1st level Kasatha with TWF can make 4 weapon attacks at -4/-4/-10/-10.
A 1st level Kasatha Fighter with TWF and MWF can make 4 weapon attacks at -4/-4/-4/-4.
Wielding light weapons in the 3 off-hands would reduce this to -2/-2/-2/-2.
The Kasatha can later on take ITWF and GTWF, adding the extra 1 attack to his first off-hand, while (since there is no IMWF or GMWF) his other off-hands will only ever be capable of making a single attack.
Fixes the issue of qualifying for other feats with TWF, and puts MWF more in line with the strength of other similar feats.
|
|
Seems to me that a possible houserule could be this:
A 1st level Kasatha can make 4 weapon attacks at -6/-10/-10/-10.
A 1st level Kasatha with TWF can make 4 weapon attacks at -4/-4/-10/-10.
A 1st level Kasatha Fighter with TWF and MWF can make 4 weapon attacks at -4/-4/-4/-4.
Wielding light weapons in the 3 off-hands would reduce this to -2/-2/-2/-2.
The Kasatha can later on take ITWF and GTWF, adding the extra 1 attack to his first off-hand, while (since there is no IMWF or GMWF) his other off-hands will only ever be capable of making a single attack.
Fixes the issue of qualifying for other feats with TWF, and puts MWF more in line with the strength of other similar feats.
I wouldn't have an objection to that as a houserule.
i think you are all looking at the "special" line of MWF very differently than was intended....
first of all, when building a creature (PC or monster), there are a set of "available" feats you can apply to their build. when a creature you are building has 2 arms or less the options available to add are TWF+anything else you can legally apply. when building a creature with 3+ arms, that list is altered by TWF being REPLACED on the list by MWF. this, i believe, is what the "special" line means. it has nothing to do with weather or not you qualify for the feat...they are the SAME GOSH DANG feat, but one is SPECIFIC to creatures with more than 2 arms.
by this explination, if a normal 2 armed creature "grows" an extra arm (as discussed in the other thread via Vestigial Arm) the creature hasn't changed what it "is" and thus its list of available feats to add to it has also not changed and so the "special" line of MWF does not apply.
however, because a Kasatha NEVER gets the chance to take TWF because it has ALWAYS had 4 arms, the question now becomes - Does MWF count at TWF for prereqs for the rest of the TWF feats? if the answer is yes (which i believe it is), then how do those (specifically I/G-TWF) interact with the extra off-hands the Kasatha has?
bottom line, if you were born with 4 arms, you are NOT allowed to take TWF, and if you were born with 2 you are NOT allowed to take MWF...EVER!
Seems to me that a possible houserule could be this:
A 1st level Kasatha can make 4 weapon attacks at -6/-10/-10/-10.
A 1st level Kasatha with TWF can make 4 weapon attacks at -4/-4/-10/-10.
A 1st level Kasatha Fighter with TWF and MWF can make 4 weapon attacks at -4/-4/-4/-4.
Wielding light weapons in the 3 off-hands would reduce this to -2/-2/-2/-2.
The Kasatha can later on take ITWF and GTWF, adding the extra 1 attack to his first off-hand, while (since there is no IMWF or GMWF) his other off-hands will only ever be capable of making a single attack.
Fixes the issue of qualifying for other feats with TWF, and puts MWF more in line with the strength of other similar feats.
this would just infer a feat tax on a player because of their chosen race....classic RACISM!!!!
|
|
Lets look at it from another perspective. If a character gets TWF, as an elf, then later his essence is transferred to a Kasatha while that vile lady runs around in his elf body, having fun and being unfaithful to his beloved.
Other than the obvious story of trying to get back his body, life and repair the damage the sex starved lady in a Elven man's body did, in the course of the adventure, he takes MWF.
Both feats, one supersedes the other, and when he (finally) gets his body back, can't really use the feat he took as a Kasatha, but still has it because of the circumstances he had at the time. (a dead feat, much like a Half Orc with Racial Heritage taking the Kobold Combat feat Tail Terror)
I have to say that any humaniod can take TWF, no matter how many arms they have. (Unless they only have one arm, darn farming equipment!) Those with more than two arms can also take MWF, hence the addition line about one superseding the other. If one has both, they only use the later.
Lets look at it from another perspective. If a character gets TWF, as an elf, then later his essence is transferred to a Kasatha while that vile lady runs around in his elf body, having fun and being unfaithful to his beloved.
Other than the obvious story of trying to get back his body, life and repair the damage the sex starved lady in a Elven man's body did, in the course of the adventure, he takes MWF.
Both feats, one supersedes the other, and when he (finally) gets his body back, can't really use the feat he took as a Kasatha, but still has it because of the circumstances he had at the time. (a dead feat, much like a Half Orc with Racial Heritage taking the Kobold Combat feat Tail Terror)
I have to say that any humaniod can take TWF, no matter how many arms they have. (Unless they only have one arm, darn farming equipment!) Those with more than two arms can also take MWF, hence the addition line about one superseding the other. If one has both, they only use the later.
using this example i would say that it is the GM;s option to either allow the player to transfer the MWF into TWF as a free retrain when he levels up again, or keep it as a dead feat.this would all depend on how much of a jerk GM he is...
|
|
this would just infer a feat tax on a player because of their chosen race.
You could look at it like that, or you could consider these alternatives:
1) There are people here advocating the complete unavailability of TWF-dependent feats for the Kasatha, since MWF "replaces" TWF.
...or...
2) If you come up with your own houserule of an Improved (and Greater) Multi-Weapon Fighting feat, the Kasatha becomes grossly overpowered as it levels. It would be unbalancing whether it was a PC or an encounter.
By using the method I propose, the Kasatha is still getting four attacks at 1st level, and a Kasatha Fighter can get them all at a -2 penalty.
This Kasatha will always be ahead of the curve in attacks, but not as bad as using method #2.
AND, if you go with this route, a more positive way to look at it would be this: taking MWF in this way is the equivalent of gaining a +6 to-hit with two of your four attacks.
Sounds (more) reasonable than either of the two methods above, wouldn't you agree?
i DO agree that it is the most reasonable solution, however, its just as much of a house rule as your option #2. the point behind this thread is to get an OFFICIAL ruling/clarification on the matter, not come up with our own ideas. the best we can do here is discuss how we THINK it works withing our own understanding of the rules. To add both TWF AND MWF to a character would blatantly be going against the rules because of the "special" line in MWF. MWF replaces TWF. it cant be taken in addition to...
but yes, if no one ever clarifies this, your idea will probably be how i would rule this in my games.
|
|
using this example i would say that it is the GM;s option to either allow the player to transfer the MWF into TWF as a free retrain when he levels up again, or keep it as a dead feat.this would all depend on how much of a jerk GM he is...Lets look at it from another perspective. If a character gets TWF, as an elf, then later his essence is transferred to a Kasatha while that vile lady runs around in his elf body, having fun and being unfaithful to his beloved.
Other than the obvious story of trying to get back his body, life and repair the damage the sex starved lady in a Elven man's body did, in the course of the adventure, he takes MWF.
Both feats, one supersedes the other, and when he (finally) gets his body back, can't really use the feat he took as a Kasatha, but still has it because of the circumstances he had at the time. (a dead feat, much like a Half Orc with Racial Heritage taking the Kobold Combat feat Tail Terror)
I have to say that any humaniod can take TWF, no matter how many arms they have. (Unless they only have one arm, darn farming equipment!) Those with more than two arms can also take MWF, hence the addition line about one superseding the other. If one has both, they only use the later.
Uh... what?
first, he already has both when he gets his body back. He had TWF when he became the Kasatha.
Second, this perspective is not about what feats he has or if one is dead when circumstances change.
I wanted to get a situation where the character would have both for a reason that is more than "so what if one four armed character/race/monster has both feats?"
He used MWF when he had the resources to do so, and would go back to TWF when he no longer has that resource. That is what that little blurb is saying, it has nothing to do with what feat a particular race/monster can or can not take. They can choose either, but for the purposes of what bonuses are applied, MWF supersedes TWF. That is all it means.
ahh, sorry. misread about him already having TWF before changing bodies.
if that were the case, then as the GM, i would have to say that the character either 1) replaces TWF with MWF for the duration of the new body. or 2) i would rule that having this new body doesn't actually change who the player is and having a different body actually makes working these extra limbs odd and unfamiliar and tell the player he can act as a normal player with 2 "extra" arms granted by magical means such as vestigial arm where he can hold stuff, but not use them as off hands because he's not proficient with them.
either way, i see what you were getting at about having something be able to have both feats. i just dont see how (aside from your example) it could ever happen.
That question was part of my original post in this thread...
|
That question was part of my original post in this thread...
If put simply, in the OP, it is more likely to get a response from the PDT, or a developer.
I know the question is in your OP, but it is mixed in with a number of other questions, and not worded as clearly.
I am on your side. So, if there is something that helps get this question answered, then it is worth mentioning.