| 11 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
many threads on this, still no answer. so i'm simplifying the question:
question 1) does Multi-Weapon Fighting qualify you for taking any feat that lists Two-Weapon Fighting as a requirement?
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.
Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms.
the bolded entry is what needs clarification.
Question 2) if yes to question 1, does Improved Two-Weapon Fighting grant an additional attack for EACH off-hand, or just one?
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.
again, bolded text is what needs clarifying.
Thank you blackblood. Glad to see someone agrees with me
For the first question: Since it says it replaces TWF for a multi-armed creature*, I would argue that yes, it would count for the purposes of TWF for other feat requirements.
*The intent, I believe, is that to qualify for MWF you'd have to permanently\naturally have more than 3 hands, or more specifically that you have three hands and have the ability to make attacks with each of them; Alchemists with extra arms wouldn't qualify since their extra limbs don't grant additional attacks.
On the second question . . . I'm not sure. While I think we can make a fairly clear determination o question 1, ITWF's mechanics were written for a two-armed creature and are unclear when applied to a creature with MWF. So to that end I will FAQ.
I agree that ITWF was designed for creature only wielding two weapons, but how do you justify allowing MWF to qualify you for double edge and not ITWF? And if you do allow ITWF, then where does the wording specify it only applies to one off-hand other than in the name?
|
The only difference between Two-weapon Fighting, and Multiweapon Fighting, as actions, not feats, is the number of inherent off-hand attacks.
Some creatures, without the aid of feats, have more than one available off-hand attack, when two-weapon/multiweapon fighting.
That's it.
All other mechanics remain the same.
The only difference between Two-weapon Fighting, and Multiweapon Fighting, as actions, not feats, is the number of inherent off-hand attacks.
Some creatures, without the aid of feats, have more than one available off-hand attack, when two-weapon/multiweapon fighting.
That's it.
All other mechanics remain the same.
But depending on the interpretation of I/GTWF, one could argue that each offhand gets an additional attack and thus creates a very large margin between 2-handed characters and 4-handed ones. A 2 handed character can make at most 7 total attacks with a full attack action where as a 4-armed one can make 13 at most. If rules the other way it becomes a bit less at 9 total max.
I agree that without feats a MWF-ing character is just effectively front loading all of the attacks granted by the feat chain...that's not the problem. The problem is that if you allow MWF the feat to qualify you for other feats so as to maintain balance with TWF you also raise an issue as to how many added attacks you get (one per off hand per feat, or just one per feat)
wrong.
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.
fact 1) you get a standard single extra attack with each off-hand while fighting with all arms (for creatures with more than 2)
fact 2) ITWF gives you another attack with any off-hand you are using in this way.
it stands to reason, that although the intent was only to grant you 1 more attack, because it doesn't say it that way, the existence of a four-armed race brings up the argument that it applies to every off-hand weapon, because all three qualify for the benefit of ITWF without any discrimination.
nowhere in the discription for ITWF does it limit the total number of additional attacks to 1 without assuming you only have 1 off-hand. when you factor in the fact that a Kasatha has 3, ITWF becomes very RAW vs. RAI for arguments sake.
ITWF is giving you an additional iterative attack -- a second extra attack with the offhand. Multiweapon fighting never mentions if you can get iteratives. Imagine a creature that had eight arms, and could swing a sword in each. Then imagine if it had a BAB of +6 and were entitled to a second attack with each hand.
having a high BAB doesnt give you an additional attack with each hand, only the primary.
also, MWF doesnt mention if you can get iterative attacks because they have nothing to do with having more arms. iterative attacks are ONLY granted by a high BAB. off-hand attacks are not iterative, they just happen in a lower order due to their innately lower attack bonus. if your off-hand bonus ever exceeds your main-hand it ends up going first in the attack sequence since it is now your highest.
ITWF doesnt state that it give you one added attack, it states you can make an added attack with any off-hand weapon you could normally make an attack with. if you have 4 arms all wielding weapons, this applies to all of them.
Bumping because I really want this answered and I think the discussion is far from dead....more people should FAQ!!!
True, but again, refer to question 1, where we ask if MWF qualifies you for ITWF, and then consider the fact that "an off-hand" is true for 3 of your hands as a kasatha. Each of them has a. "Single extra attack" already, so as its worded each of them would get another one.
Considering 3.X had specific feats that granted additional off-hand attacks with every off-hand, and the text for ITWF hasn't changed, the intent for ITWF to only grant a single additional attack is fairly clear.
Anyway, I agree that MWF should fulfill the requirement for ITWF and GTWF, but the mechanics of those feats wouldn't change. They would still only grant 1 additional attack each, not 1 per off-hand.
So the general consensus here (as far as I can see) is that a Kasatha with MWF - ITWF - and GTWF at 20th level fighter would have a total of 9 attacks (18/18/18/18/13/13/8/8/3) yes?
I would say no as far as itwf and gtwf. Reason is is that i see multiweapon feat basically twf, itwf, and gtwf all in 1.
Lvl 1 rogue (2 armed race). If they took twf, itwf, and gtwf at lvl 1 (i know they cant but for the sake of an experiement) the rogue woukd get off 4 attacks.
lvl 1 rogue (4 armed race). Took multiweapon fighting at lvl 1, they woukd be able toget off 4 attacks.
When i look at the feats by themselves multiattack for a 4 armed race does the same thing that twf, itwf, and gtwf does for a 2 armed race. It almoat reminds me of flurry of blows being an ability that a certain class gets that does the same thing as twf, itwf, and gtwf for free except this time it costs a feat and having 4 arms instead of being free for being a monk.
I do have 2 questions though.
Multiweapon feat states that u get to make an attack with all ur arms holding weapons but doesnt say u coukd get an extra attack. Twf does say u get an extra attack. And ibthink thats where the main difference applys. One feat ur getting to attack with all ur arms holding hding weapons whereas twf is about getting 1 extra attack off to ur normal amount of attacks and ur gaining an extra attack with each feat up to 3 more than ur normal. If that amkes sense lol.
multiweapin weapon feat-4 armed person making attacks off all 4 arms holding weapons
twf, itwf, and gtwf feats-4 armed person making 4 attacks
Thats my stance on if multiweapon is eligble for itwf and gtwf feats. Now the other feats like holding 2 shields etc etc, yes i would think multiweapon feat allows for it BUT only if the peraon is doing what the feat said and not taking it to mean what multiweapon does instead of TWO weapon fighting does.
Multiweapon feat states that u get to make an attack with all ur arms holding weapons but doesnt say u coukd get an extra attack. Twf does say u get an extra attack.
Neither the MWF feat nor the TWF feat grant any additional attacks. They both simply reduce the penalties you suffer when making off-hand attacks (which you can do without the feats).
|
So the general consensus here (as far as I can see) is that a Kasatha with MWF - ITWF - and GTWF at 20th level fighter would have a total of 9 attacks (18/18/18/18/13/13/8/8/3) yes?
I would agree, with the caveat that the extra off-hand attacks from ITWF and GTWF are the same attack as one of the three off-hand attacks (ie you can't split up the extra off-hand attacks).
redneckdevil, Are is correct, TWF does not grant you an extra attack, neither does MWF. all the attacks associated to both of those feats are attacks you can already make. the feats just reduce the penalties for doing so.
if you don't agree that MWF qualifies you for I/G-TWF, then that would also mean that it would also not qualify you for feats like double slice, two-weapon rend, etc., which would actually make WMF LESS beneficial for a race with four arms than TWF because they would be getting more damage out of NOT using 2 of there arms altogether.
@HangarFlying - your statement is confusing. if i understand you correctly we are in total agreement, but let me clarify a bit:
18 - mainhand
18 - offhand1
18 - offhand2
18 - offhand3
13 - mainhand
13 - offhand1
8 - mainhand
8 - offhand1
is this what you were trying to say? its how i was doing it, but even still, i see no reason why you wouldn't be able to substitute the 13 and 8 off-hand1 attacks with offhand2 or offhand3. mechanically, the only possible difference between them would be the type of weapon in each hand and what (if any) enchantments/enhancements they might have.
Just wanted to add my 2c - I definitely agree that this could use some sort of ruling.
First off, I agree that MWF *must* qualify you for follow up feats in some fashion, because otherwise multiarmed warriors are getting totally screwed - they can't even take TWF if they want to, as MWF replaces it completely. It must at least qualify you for things like double slice.
RAW, this means it should qualify you for ITWF and GTWF, but as a GM I think its valid to say yes to the "enhancement" feats (e.g. double slice), and no to ITWF/GTWF - basically what you are saying is "you can't get extra attacks (in the long run), but you do get 3 feats for the price of one."
My interpretation/ruling would be the same as yours, Shimesen. Allow them to take the feats for exactly one extra attack, which could be with the same or more arms.
Full attacks would be totally ridiculous - In fact, I played in a low-epic 3.5 game in which a 4 armed Dervish-Ranger got to play this way. We literally had to write software to calculate his attack output. Do not do this.
(Editted for grammar)