|
No that is your assertion.
No, it's not an assertion, it's how it works. Just because a human doesn't have the two-weapon fighting feat doesn't mean he can't make an off-hand attack.
Just because a creature with three or more arms doesn't have the multiweapon fighting feat doesn't mean that it can't make additional off-hand attacks.
The feats merely reduce the penalties for fighting in such a way.
No you are the one saying that is how it works. I, and others, are saying that is not how it works. You don't just get to simply declare yourself right.
Which you need to prove.*yawn* See above.Yawn all you want. You still have not done more than declare that everything works like you say it works and we are all wrong. That is not proof of your position.
Me thinks you don't understand "logical fallacies and hypothetical arguments" as well as you think you do.This is rich. The entire first half of your post is question begging and yet you lecture me on not understanding logical fallacies.
Edit: BTW I would still like you, or anyone else, to show an example of another feat that creates a universal rule that applies to those who have not taken the feat.
Are you serious? You're telling me that a human must have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat to be able to make an off-hand attack?
|
|
That is exactly what I am telling you.
Actually, Bestiary feats are perfectly acceptable for PCs to take if they qualify for them. The reason why they are in the Bestiary is because most PCs won't qualify for them, but most monsters will. PFS has issued a houserule that states that PCs may not take Bestiary feats unless there is some ability that specifically says that they can take them.That is absolutely untrue. If it was then the Ranger Natural Weapons fighting style would not have to specify you can take Improved Natural Weapon. You would just naturally qualify once you take Aspect of the Beast or gain claws some other way.
You need a natural attack and a BAB +4 to normally qualify for Improved Natural Attack. The ranger would be able to take Improved Natural Weapon prior to having BAB +4 (assuming he already has a natural weapon).
Furthermore, you're telling me that a Wizard couldn't take the Craft Construct feat?
How are constructs made if a wizard can never take the Craft Construct feat?
|
So if a 4 armed person wiyhout vestigial arms took the feat for 2 weapon fighting, they woukd gain the benefits only on 2 of the weapons they are attacking with? Meaning 2 of the attacks woukd gain the benefits with the extra attack whereas their other 2 attacks would keep their penalities and not gain the bonuses from the feat?
So 2 attacks will gain the benefits but the other 2 attacks would not but would open up the rest of the feats thatbuse 2weapon fighting.
then theres the option of multi feat where all the attacks gain the benefits but closes off the feats that use 2 weapon fighting..Both viable and how it works?
I am saying that a 4 armed player character (without vestigial arms) works just like a 2 armed character when using TWF. They get exactly the same number of attacks at exactly the same penalties.
The only difference is the person with more than two arms can have a different damage type weapon in each hand and make any given off hand attack with any one of those weapons.
|
|
So he chooses to attack with all of his arms, how does one adjudicate it in that case?No, I am not.
A first level fighter with 4 natural arms, two weapon fighting (edit: with the TWF feat) wielding a longsword in one arm a dagger in one hand and a light mace in the other gets:
Primary hand attack with Longsword at -2
Off hand attack with either other arm at -2
Done.
|
|
Now you are using a strawman argument. You know good and well we are talking about PCs. No one is saying that NPC Wizards can't take Craft Construct.
How are constructs made if a wizard can never take the Craft Construct feat?
PCs, in a non-PFS situation, are certainly capable of taking feats from the Bestiary if they qualify for them. If you, as GM don't allow that, that is certainly your prerogative, but it's a houserule.
|
|
So he chooses to attack with all of his arms, how does one adjudicate it in that case?No, I am not.
A first level fighter with 4 natural arms, two weapon fighting (edit: with the TWF feat) wielding a longsword in one arm a dagger in one hand and a light mace in the other gets:
Primary hand attack with Longsword at -2
Off hand attack with either other arm at -2Done.
EDIT: so Primary longsword -2/off-hand dagger -2/off-hand light mace -2?
|
|
So if a 4 armed person wiyhout vestigial arms took the feat for 2 weapon fighting, they woukd gain the benefits only on 2 of the weapons they are attacking with? Meaning 2 of the attacks woukd gain the benefits with the extra attack whereas their other 2 attacks would keep their penalities and not gain the bonuses from the feat?
So 2 attacks will gain the benefits but the other 2 attacks would not but would open up the rest of the feats thatbuse 2weapon fighting.
then theres the option of multi feat where all the attacks gain the benefits but closes off the feats that use 2 weapon fighting..Both viable and how it works?
I am saying that a 4 armed player character (without vestigial arms) works just like a 2 armed character when using TWF. They get exactly the same number of attacks at exactly the same penalties.
The only difference is the person with more than two arms can have a different damage type weapon in each hand and make any given off hand attack with any one of those weapons.
Though, said character would never take the TWF feat because they qualify for the MWF feat.
|
|
So he chooses to attack with all of his arms, how does one adjudicate it in that case?No, I am not.
A first level fighter with 4 natural arms, two weapon fighting (edit: with the TWF feat) wielding a longsword in one arm a dagger in one hand and a light mace in the other gets:
Primary hand attack with Longsword at -2
Off hand attack with either other arm at -2Done.
Off hand #2 and off hand #3 are at what penalties?
EDIT: and why would said 1st level fighter with 4 natural arms not take the multiweapon fighting feat?
How can I be more clear. He does not get an off hand #2 and off hand #3. Any of those arms can be used to make his SINGLE, SOLE, ONLY off hand attack but he doesn't get additional off hand attacks.
The reason he doesn't take Multiweapon Fighting is because he CAN'T. That is what I have been saying all along. My position is that, as a PC, it is not a valid option for him. He just uses the TWF rules and the TWF feats.
|
|
Though, said character would never take the TWF feat because they qualify for the MWF feat.So if a 4 armed person wiyhout vestigial arms took the feat for 2 weapon fighting, they woukd gain the benefits only on 2 of the weapons they are attacking with? Meaning 2 of the attacks woukd gain the benefits with the extra attack whereas their other 2 attacks would keep their penalities and not gain the bonuses from the feat?
So 2 attacks will gain the benefits but the other 2 attacks would not but would open up the rest of the feats thatbuse 2weapon fighting.
then theres the option of multi feat where all the attacks gain the benefits but closes off the feats that use 2 weapon fighting..Both viable and how it works?
I am saying that a 4 armed player character (without vestigial arms) works just like a 2 armed character when using TWF. They get exactly the same number of attacks at exactly the same penalties.
The only difference is the person with more than two arms can have a different damage type weapon in each hand and make any given off hand attack with any one of those weapons.
That is what we are debating. I say they would not qualify. You can't just keep repeating they qualify over and over and make it true.
|
|
How can I be more clear. He does not get an off hand #2 and off hand #3. Any of those arms can be used to make his SINGLE, SOLE, ONLY off hand attack but he doesn't get additional off hand attacks.
The reason he doesn't take Multiweapon Fighting is because he CAN'T. That is what I have been saying all along. My position is that, as a PC, it is not a valid option for him. He just uses the TWF rules and the TWF feats.
For PFS, he can't take the Multiweapon Fighting feat, though the point is moot because there are no legal four-armed PC races available.
For a non-PFS game, such a PC certainly would take Multiweapon Fighting feat. Unless you're a GM who houserules that PCs can't take feats out of the Bestiary (in which case I would wonder why you would allow a four-armed race to be chosen as a PC race in the first place).
So then your position is that a feat which would be entirely subsumed by a superior feat should still be an option, even though the language of the superior feat itself says is replaces the other feat? That another example cannot be identified is irrelevant - this is an entirely unique situation.
I too am waiting for a response. If the rules are supposed to function together as has been laid out above, what purpose is there for any creature with 3+ arms to take TWF when MWF is an available option?
So your answer to a request for evidence that the feat works as you say is to say you don't have to provide evidence? Yep, good solid logic there.
I also responded to your question and you ignored it. The entire argument is about whether or not MWF is an available option so you can't use the claim that it is an available option as evidence. That is circular reasoning. That is logical fallacy #2.
1. "No other evidence exists because no other known situation is relevant" is an appropriate logical response if the situation fits. This situation fits. That no other similar situation exists does not mean that this situation cannot be uniquely functioning differently than others.
2. I didn't ignore anything. We were typing at the same time, and I'm on my phone. You posted before I saw it. Second, the response ignores the fact that I'm specifically talking about scenarios where MWF is an option. PFS is not relevant. This thread is about naturally four armed characters. Vestigial Arms is also not relevant. Even if it were, it still doesn't implicate MWF, as I and others have stated.
3. How is the argument about whether MWF is an available option? It's about the impact MWF has on TWF for 3+ armed creatures. Unsurprisingly, you've again mischaracterized what you see as a logical fallacy. You've already misidentified the ad hominem fallacy. Me calling an argument or position nonsensical is not me making a critique of the person making the argument and thereby trying to undercut that person's argument by extension. That is what an ad hominem argument is. Calling an argument itself nonsensical is not ad hominem because it is not a critique of the person presenting the argument. Before you start throwing these fallacy arguments around, I suggest you attempt to understand them on your own, first.
MWF doesn't require a houserule to make it available to PCs. PFS has a specific rule making it unavailable to PCs in PFS. Ergo, it is not an option in PFS. This is the Rules forum, not the PFS forum. Some rules work differently in PFS than they do in the base game.I don't play PFS but my understanding is that they don't allow it because it is in the Bestiary and as such isn't intended to apply to characters which is exactly the opposite of your claim. So the PFS rule is indeed relevant to the discussion but nice try to dismiss arguments that clearly don't support your position.
No, my claim is that MWF replaces TWF when MWF is available for characters to take. It is not available in PFS because they decided to not make it available in PFS. Ergo, PFS is not relevant to this discussion. Things work differently in PFS. One of the things that works differently is the availability of feats from the Bestiary, feats like MWF. In the base game, there is nothing prohibiting PCs from taking feats that appear in the Bestiary, aside from a GM saying no. Besides, this thread is titled "Naturally 4-Armed races and Multi-Weapon / Two-Weapon Fighting". Are any naturally 4-armed races available for PCs to play in PFS? No. So again, why are we worried about PFS? I already stated, clearly, why the GM in your little PFS scenario was incorrect in more than one way. That should be the end of any PFS discussion here. It's not relevant. MWF is not available in PFS. End of story.
And please stop trying to snidely instruct me how to construct an argument. It's insulting, trying, and you're doing a very poor job of it.
|
|
How can I be more clear. He does not get an off hand #2 and off hand #3. Any of those arms can be used to make his SINGLE, SOLE, ONLY off hand attack but he doesn't get additional off hand attacks.
The reason he doesn't take Multiweapon Fighting is because he CAN'T. That is what I have been saying all along. My position is that, as a PC, it is not a valid option for him. He just uses the TWF rules and the TWF feats.
For PFS, he can't take the Multiweapon Fighting feat, though the point is moot because there are no legal four-armed PC races available.
For a non-PFS game, such a PC certainly would take Multiweapon Fighting feat. Unless you're a GM who houserules that PCs can't take feats out of the Bestiary (in which case I would wonder why you would allow a four-armed race to be chosen as a PC race in the first place).
That is not a houserule. The houserule is allowing players to take monster feats.
So he chooses to attack with all of his arms, how does one adjudicate it in that case?No, I am not.
A first level fighter with 4 natural arms, two weapon fighting (edit: with the TWF feat) wielding a longsword in one arm a dagger in one hand and a light mace in the other gets:
Primary hand attack with Longsword at -2
Off hand attack with either other arm at -2Done.
Off hand #2 and off hand #3 are at what penalties?
EDIT: and why would said 1st level fighter with 4 natural arms not take the multiweapon fighting feat?
How can I be more clear. He does not get an off hand #2 and off hand #3. Any of those arms can be used to make his SINGLE, SOLE, ONLY off hand attack but he doesn't get additional off hand attacks.
The reason he doesn't take Multiweapon Fighting is because he CAN'T. That is what I have been saying all along. My position is that, as a PC, it is not a valid option for him. He just uses the TWF rules and the TWF feats.
Why do you think PCs cannot take MWF in non-PFS games? Is there a rule in the Bestiary that says, "PCs cannot take these feats"?
I mean, the Bestiary specifically says, "Most of the following feats apply specifically to monsters, although some player characters might qualify for them (particularly Craft Construct)." That means, 1. It is well within the rules that PCs could actually take some of these feats. 2. That is specifically why Hangar brought up Craft Construct. Because the Bestiary specifically and explicitly says that would be a "Monster" Feat that a PC might qualify to take.
So, do you have any support as to why PCs in non-PFS games cannot take Bestiary feats?
That is what we are debating. I say they would not qualify. You can't just keep repeating they qualify over and over and make it true.
You seem to be simply repeating that they don't qualify over and over to make it true. So ...
|
|
That is not a houserule. The houserule is allowing players to take monster feats.How can I be more clear. He does not get an off hand #2 and off hand #3. Any of those arms can be used to make his SINGLE, SOLE, ONLY off hand attack but he doesn't get additional off hand attacks.
The reason he doesn't take Multiweapon Fighting is because he CAN'T. That is what I have been saying all along. My position is that, as a PC, it is not a valid option for him. He just uses the TWF rules and the TWF feats.
For PFS, he can't take the Multiweapon Fighting feat, though the point is moot because there are no legal four-armed PC races available.
For a non-PFS game, such a PC certainly would take Multiweapon Fighting feat. Unless you're a GM who houserules that PCs can't take feats out of the Bestiary (in which case I would wonder why you would allow a four-armed race to be chosen as a PC race in the first place).
Oh...really? I wasn't aware that there was a rule anywhere that said that only NPCs could take Bestiary feats.
In fact, the PRD says:
Most of the following feats apply specifically to monsters, although some player characters might qualify for them (particularly Craft Construct).
Sooooooooo...to not allow PCs to take Bestiary feats is a houserule.
That is not a houserule. The houserule is allowing players to take monster feats.How can I be more clear. He does not get an off hand #2 and off hand #3. Any of those arms can be used to make his SINGLE, SOLE, ONLY off hand attack but he doesn't get additional off hand attacks.
The reason he doesn't take Multiweapon Fighting is because he CAN'T. That is what I have been saying all along. My position is that, as a PC, it is not a valid option for him. He just uses the TWF rules and the TWF feats.
For PFS, he can't take the Multiweapon Fighting feat, though the point is moot because there are no legal four-armed PC races available.
For a non-PFS game, such a PC certainly would take Multiweapon Fighting feat. Unless you're a GM who houserules that PCs can't take feats out of the Bestiary (in which case I would wonder why you would allow a four-armed race to be chosen as a PC race in the first place).
Is this where I'm supposed to point out you're begging the question?
|
|
So then your position is that a feat which would be entirely subsumed by a superior feat should still be an option, even though the language of the superior feat itself says is replaces the other feat? That another example cannot be identified is irrelevant - this is an entirely unique situation.
I too am waiting for a response. If the rules are supposed to function together as has been laid out above, what purpose is there for any creature with 3+ arms to take TWF when MWF is an available option?
So your answer to a request for evidence that the feat works as you say is to say you don't have to provide evidence? Yep, good solid logic there.
I also responded to your question and you ignored it. The entire argument is about whether or not MWF is an available option so you can't use the claim that it is an available option as evidence. That is circular reasoning. That is logical fallacy #2.
Now you're just being adorable.
1. "No other evidence exists because no other known situation is relevant" is an appropriate logical response if the situation fits. This situation fits. That no other similar situation exists does not mean that this situation cannot be uniquely functioning differently than others.
Other situations are relevant. Every other feat works differently and you have given no reason why the Special line from MWF works differently than every other feat. You are making the claim therefore it is your burden of proof.
2. I didn't ignore anything. We were typing at the same time, and I'm on my phone. You posted before I saw it. Second, the response ignores the fact that I'm specifically talking about scenarios where MWF is an option. PFS is not relevant. This thread is about naturally four armed characters. Vestigial Arms is also not relevant. Even if it were, it still doesn't implicate MWF, as I and others have stated.
My position is that there are no situation where MWF is available to PCs without a houserule. That is what we are discussing. So try again.
3. How is the argument about whether MWF is an available option? It's about the impact MWF has on TWF for 3+ armed creatures. Unsurprisingly, you've again mischaracterized what you see as a logical fallacy. You've already misidentified the ad hominem fallacy. Me calling an argument or position nonsensical is not me making a critique...
My argument has been from the first that MWF only affects those who take it and that PCs by RAW can't take it. You calling simply dismissing my argument as nonsensical rather than offering a rebuttal of the argument is an ad hominem.
When it comes down to it your claim is that the MWF feat is available to PCs (except in PFS) and that its special line causes it to replace TWF as an option for PCs with more than two arms.
It is your burden of proof to show that the special line applies differently in this case than it does in every other feat. Simply saying that it is unique so there is no evidence isn't acceptable and you know it.
Well, if your claim is that PCs by RAW can't take Bestiary feats, you're simply wrong. That doesn't appear anywhere in the rule books.
|
|
Is this where I'm supposed to point out you're begging the question?That is not a houserule. The houserule is allowing players to take monster feats.How can I be more clear. He does not get an off hand #2 and off hand #3. Any of those arms can be used to make his SINGLE, SOLE, ONLY off hand attack but he doesn't get additional off hand attacks.
The reason he doesn't take Multiweapon Fighting is because he CAN'T. That is what I have been saying all along. My position is that, as a PC, it is not a valid option for him. He just uses the TWF rules and the TWF feats.
For PFS, he can't take the Multiweapon Fighting feat, though the point is moot because there are no legal four-armed PC races available.
For a non-PFS game, such a PC certainly would take Multiweapon Fighting feat. Unless you're a GM who houserules that PCs can't take feats out of the Bestiary (in which case I would wonder why you would allow a four-armed race to be chosen as a PC race in the first place).
It would be if the feats were not explicitly MONSTER FEATS. It is in the name!
Monster Feats
Most of the following feats apply specifically to monsters, although some player characters might qualify for them (particularly Craft Construct).
These feats are specifically for monsters. A player character may have the qualifications for them. It does NOT say they can take them only that they MAY qualify. Which would then place that decision up to the GM. So technically you are right it is not a house rule but it is not RAW that they can take them. We are debating RAW.
It is your burden of proof to show that the special line applies differently in this case than it does in every other feat. Simply saying that it is unique so there is no evidence isn't acceptable and you know it.
It isn't acceptable to you. *shrug* I have no problem with it. Identifying this situation as particularly unique and recognizing that there are therefore no similarly situated circumstances does not vitiate an argument. It certainly means that there is less ancillary support for me to refer to, but it does not end the discussion in the slightest.
MWF absolutely is available for PCs in non-PFS games unless the GM disallows it. That being the case, whether it ultimately makes TWF literally unavailable for creatures with 3+ arms or simply is a vastly superior option is irrelevant because there would be no reason for such a creature to take TWF if MWF is available to take. So even if it does not literally and completely replace TWF, it certainly effectively does.
If the creature already took TWF and subsequently comes into another arm through some means other than Vestigial Arms for whatever reason, then simply retrain the feat. Or stick with it because at the time it was the only thing available to you. Or you and your GM can come up with some other suitable option. I don't really care. It's not a particularly pertinent situation.
See my answer above.Well, if your claim is that PCs by RAW can't take Bestiary feats, you're simply wrong. That doesn't appear anywhere in the rule books.In fact, as I pointed out, the rules (in the Bestiary, even) acknowledge that PCs may take those feats.
Your answer is incorrect. You recognize that it is not a "house rule" that PCs may take feats from the Bestiary. If it's not a house rule, what is it? You recognize that situations exist where PCs can therefore take the feats, and that this is perfectly acceptable according to the language used in the rule books. So, the rules, as they are written, allow for PCs to take these feats. And allowing that to happen does not require a "house rule", which is definitively something that departs from the rules as they are explicitly written and understood.
Yet you claim that this is not RAW.
Nowhere do the rules say that the PCs can't take the Bestiary feats. The rules simply state that, while these feats are in the Bestiary and are made for monsters, some PCs might qualify for them. If PCs might qualify for them, but still shouldn't be allowed to take them, the rules would say something to the extent of "These feats are not available to PCs, even if they might otherwise qualify for them."
Well, if your claim is that PCs by RAW can't take Bestiary feats, you're simply wrong. That doesn't appear anywhere in the rule books.In fact, as I pointed out, the rules (in the Bestiary, even) acknowledge that PCs may take those feats.
As you pointed it out? Pffft. Lame. I pointed it out first.
HOW DO YOU LIKE THEM APPLES!?
|
|
So he chooses to attack with all of his arms, how does one adjudicate it in that case?No, I am not.
"What happens to the two remaining off-hand attacks?"
He does not use them in favor of using two weapons with lesser penalties. He can use those other off-hands to hold potions, hold a bow for when he needs to use ranged attacks, pull up his pants, tuck in his shirt, flip someone the bird...
Your making this more comlicated than it needs to be. The only time MWF supersedes TWF is when a character has both feats. PFS does not need to grant access to MWF because the characters can take TWF regardless.
See, if he chooses to use all for arms to attack and he only has TWF, then he takes the regular penalties that is in the CRB.
To be sure, in a home game the availability of the MWF would be less of an issue, but it is still a GM call. Likely, in the case of the new available race Kasatha, it would be a no brainer to let the player take the feat.
I wonder, if the feats could have been written as a player focus instead of one being a monster feat, if TWF would have been a prerequisite for MWF.
PFS, the Kasatha isn't a boon race (I think it more likely that the Goblin would get another shot) and the chance this issue comes up is highly unlikely.
1) as quoted from the Beastiary 1
Most of the following feats apply specifically to monsters,
although some player characters might qualify for them
(particularly Craft Construct).
so please stop saying that Players CANT take MWF as a feat. they CAN so long as it applies to them, which in this discussion, they do.
2) as quoted from the Kasatha in the Beastiary 4
Multi-Armed (Ex) A kasatha has four arms. One
hand is considered its primary hand; all others are
considered off hands. It can use any of its hands for other
purposes that require free hands.
it has been stated by Dev's in previous threads, that the ONLY reason a player with vestigial arm CANT make more off-hand attacks with their "extra" arms is because those arms dont add additional off-hands for game mechanical purposes. in this scenario, that isn't the case. a Kasatha has 3 off-hands that he can make off-hand attacks with.
3) from a purely game mechanical stand point, a Kasatha at level 1 with no feats at all CAN make 4 attacks as a full-attack action with respective penalties applied.
4) Two-weapon Fighting does not give any room for interpretation as to what a character with more than one off-hand can do with the other ones when it makes a full-attack action. This is because Multi-Weapon fighting does exist and CAN BE TAKEN in this type of situation.
5) Multi-Weapon Fighting accounts for these extra off-hands in regards to a full-attack action.
6) a character with 4 arms such as the Kasatha will ALWAYS be able to make attacks with his other two off-hands, weather he takes two-weapon fighting or multi-weapon fighting once eligible.
so the questions now become the following:
1) WHAT EXACTLY DOES THE SPECIAL LINE IN MULTI-WEAPON FIGHTING MEAN!?!?!
2) can a kasatha take two-weapon fighting ever? or does it simply not exist for them?
3) if yes to #2, then what are the appropriate penalties for this situation?
4) if no to #2, does Multi-weapon fighting replace two-weapon fighting in ALL regards? meaning as a prereq for other feats, etc?
although everyone who has said it so far in this thread is correct, that no other feats special applies to a character until they take the feat, i beg you answer this question to me:
If a character first takes TWF and then later takes MWF, how exactly does the special line apply? since it replaces TWF, would it then take up the feat slot for TWF when taken and thus make taking it at that point a literal feat tax given that you've now used 2 feat slots to do something you simply could have done with the first one? (this in my opinion is what you are all trying to say), or would it make sense to say that the special line in this particular instance is really just a variable feat requirement, meaning that when deciding on feats before you take them you see an if/than statement and take appropriate action according to whichever applies?
what i mean, is that IF you have 2 hands THAN you take TWF, but IF you have 4 hands THAN you take MWF.....this is how is see the special line as being INTENDED to have been used.
granted, yes, there is no other example of a special line being used this way, but that doesnt mean that this isn't what was MEANT. from the writers point of view: "i can either create a whole new format for this one specific entrance im about to put in, or i could just use an already existing style of writing something in (in this case, adding a special line) to get my point across.
if everyone would just hit the FAQ button here, we could get a solid answer to this, instead of just arguing about it. we've all made our points on this it seems, and everyone is stuck in their decisions. FAQ and have someone rule it one way of the other for us.
Again, note that how many off-hand attacks you can make is not granted by the Two-Weapon Fighting feat. It's the General Combat Rules that apply to everyone that says you can make an off-hand attack. So, hypothetically speaking, if you were a Kathasa who, for whatever reason, took TWF and not MWF, TWF would reduce the penalties of your Main-Hand attack and one off-hand attack, but your other two off-hand attacks would be made with their normal penalties (-10 or -8 depending on light or non-light off-hand weapons).
yes, i think we all agree on this point. anyone arguing otherwise on this point is simply unaware of precisely how this game works....
|
|
So... If you, as a player, have the CRB, where exactly is the MWF feat?
Not everyone that plays PF has a bestiary, not all players intend to be a GM.
To clarify, TWF can always be taken as long as the character has at least two arms and the ability to wield weapons. There should be no confusion about this. The pre-regs for the feat are clear, there is nothing there about having only two arms or not being able to take it if you have more.
So... If you, as a player, have the CRB, where exactly is the MWF feat?
Not everyone that plays PF has a bestiary, not all players intend to be a GM.
To clarify, TWF can always be taken as long as the character has at least two arms and the ability to wield weapons. There should be no confusion about this. The pre-regs for the feat are clear, there is nothing there about having only two arms or not being able to take it if you have more.
If all you have is the CRB, how are you playing a race with 4 arms?
|
|
Your answer is incorrect. You recognize that it is not a "house rule" that PCs may take feats from the Bestiary. If it's not a house rule, what is it? You recognize that situations exist where PCs can therefore take the feats, and that this is perfectly acceptable according to the language used in the rule books. So, the rules, as they are written, allow for PCs to take these feats. And allowing that to happen does not require a "house rule", which is definitively something that departs from the rules as they are explicitly written and understood.
Yet you claim that this is not RAW.
Nowhere do the rules say that the PCs can't take the Bestiary feats. The rules simply state that, while these feats are in the Bestiary and are made for monsters, some PCs might qualify for them. If PCs might qualify for them, but still shouldn't be allowed to take them, the rules would say something to the extent of "These feats are not available to PCs, even if they might otherwise qualify for them."
I was typing really quickly last night to both you and Hanger and trying to pack up to leave work so I didn't word my response very well. Let me clarify.
Monster Feats
Most of the following feats apply specifically to monsters, although some player characters might qualify for them (particularly Craft Construct).
The way I read that line is to mean that even though some PCs might meet the qualifications for these feats they are specifically intended to apply to monsters, i.e. those players with the qualifications aren't supposed to be able to take them.
I said it wasn't technically RAW but that was poor phrasing. What I meant is that the RAW is debatable because I can see how someone might read that a bit differently. Although I think that the fact that they are called Monster Feats and contained in a book that most players shouldn't be reading suggests strongly that line should be interpreted prohibitively.
All of that is a off-topic anyway, as whether a player can or cannot take the MWF feat does not answer the question of whether the text of the feat applies to those who don't take it.
Let me phrase my argument clearly
Premise 1: The text in the Benefits and Special line of any given feat only apply to those who have taken that feat.
Premise 2: The rule that Multiweapon fighting replaces two weapon fighting for creatures with 3+ arms is contained within the Special line of that feat.
Conclusion: The rule that Multiweapon fighting replaces two weapon fighting for creatures with 3+ arms is applicable only to creatures that have actually taken Multiweapon fighting.
Premise 2 is undeniable as is verifiable in the Bestiary. In support of premise 1 I have offered as evidence every other feat in every other book. If the premises are true then the conclusion is necessarily true. Thus you must prove that premise 1 is false in order to logically reject the conclusion.
"If all you have is the CRB, how are you playing a race with 4 arms?"
The GM has the Race Builder and the player is playing a race the GM made?
Then wouldn't this same GM discuss with that player what options might be available for this new race, including options presented in the Bestiary (which the GM either has or has access to through the PRD, just like the player)?
And this is all still outside the scope of the CRB, which is how you couched your scenario.
|
|
Again, note that how many off-hand attacks you can make is not granted by the Two-Weapon Fighting feat. It's the General Combat Rules that apply to everyone that says you can make an off-hand attack. So, hypothetically speaking, if you were a Kathasa who, for whatever reason, took TWF and not MWF, TWF would reduce the penalties of your Main-Hand attack and one off-hand attack, but your other two off-hand attacks would be made with their normal penalties (-10 or -8 depending on light or non-light off-hand weapons).
Sure, that's fair, but in reality, a Kasatha would never take the TWF feat to begin with.
|
|
The way I read that line is to mean that even though some PCs might meet the qualifications for these feats they are specifically intended to apply to monsters, i.e. those players with the qualifications aren't supposed to be able to take them.
I said it wasn't technically RAW but that was poor phrasing. What I meant is that the RAW is debatable because I can see how someone might read that a bit differently. Although I think that the fact that they are called Monster Feats and contained in a book that most players shouldn't be reading suggests strongly that line should be interpreted prohibitively.
All of that is a off-topic anyway, as whether a player can or cannot take the MWF feat does not answer the question of whether the text of the feat applies to those who don't take it.
Let me phrase my argument clearly
Premise 1: The text in the Benefits and Special line of any given feat only apply to those who have taken that feat.
Premise 2: The rule that Multiweapon fighting replaces two weapon fighting for creatures with 3+ arms is contained within the Special line of that feat.
Conclusion: The rule that Multiweapon fighting replaces two weapon fighting for creatures with 3+ arms is applicable only to creatures that have actually taken Multiweapon fighting.
Premise 2 is undeniable as is verifiable in the Bestiary. In support of premise 1 I have offered as evidence every other feat in every other book. If the premises are true then the conclusion is necessarily true. Thus you must prove that premise 1 is false in order to logically reject the conclusion.
Unless you arbitrarily restrict PCs from accessing the feats in the Bestiary, your points are irrelevant.
A Kasatha is either A) not going to take the MWF feat, for which it takes the full penalties to its attacks, or B) it takes the MWF feat, for which it would qualify for those other feats that need "Two-Weapon Fighting". The Kasatha would never take the TWF feat.
EDIT: the reason why the Bestiary feats will "[mostly] apply specifically to monsters" is because most PCs don't have natural attacks, three or more arms, or the ability to fly. If the PC, for whatever reason, meets the prerequisites for any of those feats, there is nothing, short of a houserule, that actually prevents them from taking those feat.
Monster Feats
Most of the following feats apply specifically to monsters, although some player characters might qualify for them (particularly Craft Construct).The way I read that line is to mean that even though some PCs might meet the qualifications for these feats they are specifically intended to apply to monsters, i.e. those players with the qualifications aren't supposed to be able to take them.
I said it wasn't technically RAW but that was poor phrasing. What I meant is that the RAW is debatable because I can see how someone might read that a bit differently. Although I think that the fact that they are called Monster Feats and contained in a book that most players shouldn't be reading suggests strongly that line should be interpreted prohibitively.
All of that is a off-topic anyway, as whether a player can or cannot take the MWF feat does not answer the question of whether the text of the feat applies to those who don't take it.
Let me phrase my argument clearly
Premise 1: The text in the Benefits and Special line of any given feat only apply to those who have taken that feat.
Premise 2: The rule that Multiweapon fighting replaces two weapon fighting for creatures with 3+ arms is contained within the Special line of that feat.
Conclusion: The rule that Multiweapon fighting replaces two weapon fighting for creatures with 3+ arms is applicable only to creatures that have actually taken Multiweapon fighting.
Premise 2 is undeniable as is verifiable in the Bestiary. In support of premise 1 I have offered as evidence every other feat in every other book. If the premises are true then the conclusion is necessarily true. Thus you must prove that premise 1 is false in order to logically reject the conclusion.
You're free to read that line that way if you wish. You're not the only person to do so. But, as you said, at best it's ambiguous.
Regardless, I'm confused by your statement that "All of that is a off-topic anyway, as whether a player can or cannot take the MWF feat does not answer the question of whether the text of the feat applies to those who don't take it."
Just yesterday, your position was twofold:
My argument has been from the first that MWF only affects those who take it and that PCs by RAW can't take it.
You're now saying that the second part isn't a part of your argument and , beyond that, it isn't even relevant to your real argument. If that's the case, I think you're failing to understand the point I'm making.
So let me be explicit. If PCs can take MWF, then it is irrelevant whether MWF literally replaces TWF or simply effectively replaces TWF - it is uniformly a superior option. Whether PCs can take MWF is absolutely relevant to this discussion. That's the entire point. If MWF actually is available, then PCs with 3+ arms have absolutely no reason to take TWF in the first place. None. So, effectively or literally, MWF replaces TWF for creatures with 3+ arms.
The only question is whether MWF is available for PCs to take. In PFS it is not, so clearly PCs with 3+ natural arms (were any such races actually legal) would be forced to take the inferior TWF. In home games where the GM says, "Bestiary feats are off limits", MWF is not available, so clearly PCs with 3+ natural arms (were any such races allowed by the GM) would be forced to take the inferior TWF.
But here's the question: If a GM is going to allow a race for PC play (like the Kasatha) that appears in the Advanced Race Guide and includes a trait as a part of its race (specifically, "Multi-Armed") which falls under a heading of traits explicitly called "Monstrous Traits", why on earth would that GM disallow access to Bestiary feats simply because they fall under a section called "Monster Feats"? Particularly when the "Monster Feats" section explicitly states that PCs might qualify and take those feats, even though they were primarily designed for monsters?
So yes, my position is the Special line in MWF does impact everybody, even those who don't take it. But whether that's literal or not ultimately is irrelevant. If MWF is available to take, why would any creature who could take it not take it over TWF? And if MWF is not available to take, what is the point of this discussion?
|
|
Unless you arbitrarily restrict PCs from accessing the feats in the Bestiary, your points are irrelevant.A Kasatha is either A) not going to take the MWF feat, for which it takes the full penalties to its attacks, or B) it takes the MWF feat, for which it would qualify for those other feats that need "Two-Weapon Fighting". The Kasatha would never take the TWF feat.
First you ignored the first part of my post clarifying my position on whether PCs can take Bestiary feats. We disagree on what the RAW is for taking Bestiary feats. I believe RAW prohibits them. You believe RAW allows them. I acknowledge that your reading is not unreasonable though I think it is incorrect. However, that does not make the decision not to allow players to take those feats arbitrary.
Second it doesn't address the PFS issue that was at the beginning of this debate. For PFS characters with 3+ arms can they still take and use TWF or are they completely unable to use two weapons without the full penalties.
Third you keep bringing up Kasatha as if they are the only multi-armed PCs in question. If a Rogue with the TWF feat dips into alchemist and gets a third arm what happens?
My understanding of your position is that you believe TWF is immediately replaced with the MWF feat because the Special line of MWF says so even though this Rogue has not taken the MWF feat.
My position is that the replacement rule only applies to those that take MWF and so the Rogue continues to use TWF as normal. Even if I thought MWF was allowable for PCs why would this Rogue want to spend an extra feat on it instead of using the one he already has.
Second it doesn't address the PFS issue that was at the beginning of this debate. For PFS characters with 3+ arms can they still take and use TWF or are they completely unable to use two weapons without the full penalties.
Third you keep bringing up Kasatha as if they are the only multi-armed PCs in question. If a Rogue with the TWF feat dips into alchemist and gets a third arm what happens?
1. What PFS characters can have 3+ natural arms?
2. Vestigial Arms is, again, not relevant to this discussion about creatures with 3+ natural arms. It is also not relevant because Vestigial Arms works differently, by the very language of the discovery and the FAQ clarifying it. You cannot make three manufactured weapon attacks if your third arm was granted via Vestigial Arms, so how is MWF implicated at all?
|
|
You're now saying that the second part isn't a part of your argument and , beyond that, it isn't even relevant to your real argument. If that's the case, I think you're failing to understand the point I'm making.
Ok, I can't tell whether you are really misunderstanding me or just being deliberately obtuse but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and explain. The part about PCs not being able to take MWF was part of the support for my interpretation that MWF does not apply universally. If PCs can't take it then any PC with more than 3 arms can't use two weapons without suffering full penalties. That was the point. I have conceded, however, that your reading of the Bestiary is different than mine.
I then went out to point out that PCs not being able to take MWF was not the main support, or even the strongest, that I was offering for my position.
So let me be explicit. If PCs can take MWF, then it is irrelevant whether MWF literally replaces TWF or simply effectively replaces TWF - it is uniformly a superior option. Whether PCs can take MWF is absolutely relevant to this discussion. That's the entire point. If MWF actually is available, then PCs with 3+ arms have absolutely no reason to take TWF in the first place. None. So, effectively or literally, MWF replaces TWF for creatures with 3+ arms.
If a PC who ALREADY HAS the TWF feat takes alchemist and gets a 3rd arm. he has a reason not to take MWF. By RAW he does NOT get it automatically as a replacement. I have offered up the logical reasoning for that and you have not answered it.
The only question is whether MWF is available for PCs to take. In PFS it is not, so clearly PCs with 3+ natural arms (were any such races actually legal) would be forced to take the inferior TWF. In home games where the GM says, "Bestiary feats are off limits", MWF is not available, so clearly PCs with 3+ natural arms (were any such races allowed by the GM) would be forced to take the inferior TWF.
But here's the question: If a GM is going to allow a race for PC play (like the Kasatha) that appears in the Advanced Race Guide and includes a trait as a part of its race (specifically, "Multi-Armed") which falls under a heading of traits explicitly called "Monstrous Traits", why on earth would that GM disallow access to Bestiary feats simply because they fall under a section called "Monster Feats"? Particularly when the "Monster Feats" section explicitly states that PCs might qualify and take those feats, even though they were primarily designed for monsters?
So yes, my position is the Special line in MWF does impact everybody, even those who don't take it. But whether that's literal or not ultimately is irrelevant. If MWF is available to take, why would any creature who could take it not take it over TWF? And if MWF is not available to take, what is the point of this discussion?
Because we aren't just talking about characters that begin play with 3+ arms. We are talking about a player who already has the TWF feat somehow gains an extra arm. The initial discussion was about alchemist but this applies to someone who gains an extra arm in any way whatsoever. For Mr. Kasatha you might have to ask your GM but Kasatha's aren't the only way for PCs to get more arms. Maybe a curse, maybe reincarnation, maybe dipping alchemy. Does MWF automatically replace TWF for them? The answer is no.
|
|
1. What PFS characters can have 3+ natural arms?Second it doesn't address the PFS issue that was at the beginning of this debate. For PFS characters with 3+ arms can they still take and use TWF or are they completely unable to use two weapons without the full penalties.
Third you keep bringing up Kasatha as if they are the only multi-armed PCs in question. If a Rogue with the TWF feat dips into alchemist and gets a third arm what happens?
You keep trying to limit the discussion to those with two natural arms. From the beginning of this topic on the other thread it has never been about those who naturally have more than two arms.
2. Vestigial Arms is, again, not relevant to this discussion about creatures with 3+ natural arms. It is also not relevant because Vestigial Arms works differently, by the very language of the discovery and the FAQ clarifying it. You cannot make three manufactured weapon attacks if your third arm was granted via Vestigial Arms, so how is MWF implicated at all?
I know you really really badly want to make this about natural arms only. However, that is not what the discussion was originally about and there are other ways to get more arms than just alchemist that do not have that wording.
For example: Fighter with TWF is polymorphed into an Athach by the party wizard. He now has more than two arms. Does his TWF feat still work while in the new form. My answer yep.
Quit trying to restrict the topic to just what you want it to be about.
Crazy me, trying to discuss creatures that are naturally 4 armed in a thread that is entitled Naturally 4 Armed races ...
Vestigial Arms does not operate like you are trying to make it operate. A Fighter polymorphed into a multiarmed creature is not a Fighter that is naturally multiarmed.
I, at no point, have made the claim that TWF magically morphs into MWF if you somehow sprout an additional arm. A Fighter under polymorph effects would still not have MWF fighting available. And as I have repeatedly stated, if MWF is not available, then you are forced to take TWF. MWF isn't an option for the Fighter.
Why would TWF cease functioning for a polymorphed Fighter, anyway? That's utterly nonsensical. We could perhaps have the discussion if the polymorph effect would become permanent somehow, but now we're getting into scenarios that require a great deal of GM interpretation, considering making the polymorph effect permanent requires a lot of GM permissiveness. In that case, I already discussed possible resolutions to that.
If this all is getting back to the singular example you gave about a PFS GM who was wrong about how MWF and TWF work, I don't know what else to tell you. I already told you that this GM was incorrect on multiple levels.
Despite your apparent protestations, the point of this thread is not to talk about Vestigial Arms or PFS or any of these ancillary issues you keep trying to bring up. The point of this thread is to discuss how MWF impacts characters who naturally have 3+ arms, and how that interacts with feats that have TWF as a prerequisite.
I'm not trying to restrict this conversation to anything but what this thread was explicitly supposed to be about. That's why I keep telling you that your PFS and VA arm scenarios are irrelevant. Because they are, to the purpose of this thread.
|
|
Crazy me, trying to discuss creatures that are naturally 4 armed in a thread that is entitled Naturally 4 Armed races ...
This thread was created by someone from the other thread on this topic trying to reframe the argument in a way that he could better support. I apologize if you were not aware of that. That is why I keep bringing up non-naturally 4 armed creatures. Because the implication of applying MWF to everyone impacts other rulings.
Why would TWF cease functioning for a polymorphed Fighter, anyway? That's utterly nonsensical. We could perhaps have the discussion if the polymorph effect would become permanent somehow, but now we're getting into scenarios that require a great deal of GM interpretation, considering making the polymorph effect permanent requires a lot of GM permissiveness. In that case, I already discussed possible resolutions to that.
Because if the special line of MWF applies universally then the polymorphed fighter would then not have the correct feat to fight without penalties.
That has been the issue across two or three different threads. However, when those that think MWF applies universally start losing that argument they jump to a new thread and start all over again. I'm done except to repeat the following:
Premise 1: The text in the Benefits and Special line of any given feat only apply to those who have taken that feat.
Premise 2: The rule that Multiweapon fighting replaces two weapon fighting for creatures with 3+ arms is contained within the Special line of that feat.
Conclusion: The rule that Multiweapon fighting replaces two weapon fighting for creatures with 3+ arms is applicable only to creatures that have actually taken Multiweapon fighting.
It doesn't matter what the optimal choice is. It doesn't matter natural arms or otherwise. MWF doesn't even come into play until you have taken it as a feat.
PatientWulf, you are arguing about something that's completely irrelevant to this particular discussion. I started this thread because a ruling was already made about alchemists in PFS with vestigial arm. In that scenario you CANT have MWF because it was ruled as such.
This discussion if specifically for non-PFS characters who ARE BORN with more than 2 arms, such as the Kasatha, not those who gain them later in life.
That being said, if you make a Kasatha character, why would (assuming your GM allows you to) what would be the logic of said GM to deny a character race in the beastiary from taking a feat in the beastiary when they clearly meet the requirements? If you are denying them those feats but allowing the race, that is CLEARLY a house rule and has nothing to do with this topic.
The assumption for this thread as that the player has access to every book currently published and can build his character using anything he wants from any of those books.
And again, why would TWF all of a sudden stop functioning because the Fighter was polymorphed into a 3+ armed creature? That's an area that is necessarily going to need group discussion and consensus. Talk it over with your particular GM. And frankly, expect table variation.
Some may say TWF applies and then your additional offhand attack is made at -8 or -10 depending on all offhand weapon choices. Some may say that TWF only allows one offhand attack so you get ordinary TWF or you get MWF but with no reduction, so all attacks are at -6/-10/-10 or -4/-8/-8 depending on weapon choice. Or some may say you treat your TWF as MWF while you are polymorphed. So, regardless of your feelings on the general availability of MWF, those questions will still exist.
And in any event, Vestigial Arms is still completely irrelevant, unless you have a GM house ruling how VA works. And if the GM is house ruling how VA works, you should probably ask the GM how this should be handled, because the GM has his/her own take on things already, anyway.
What you are saying about the polymorphed fighter is just plain incorrect because it was ruled that "gaining" additional arms by vestigial arm DOES NOT increase the number of off-hands, just the number of arms. You can't make an attack with an "extra arm" unless it has an additional off-hand associated with it, which VA doesn't. The Kasathas extra arms do, which is why I started the thread, because it then became unclear on how this would work by that ruling.
That ruling in this thread stands as true, you can't take MWF if you gained extra arms by magical means. However, when you've always had them, it is unclear as to how the special line needs to be interpreted because from where I sit, you simply can take MWF as a Kasatha.
The question up for debate here is how does MWF exactly replace TWF? Because it now has. I chose MWF instead of TWF when I picked my feat...so now what?....that's where we are...do I get to take double slice now or not? Does Improved two-weapon fighting give each of my off-hand attacks an extra attack, or not?
This thread has nothing to do with the can I even take MWF question...YES I CAN, because the game I'm in allows it.
Now can we please focus on the real topic and FAQ for an answer...
