@brightshadow360: Sadly I think the one option you want least is the correct option. As Durngrun points out, two-weapon fighting (the fighting method that is affected by the feat of the same name) and FoB are both separate 'actions' for the purposes of activation, and so by RAW they wouldn't stack.
And as far as I can tell, even though FoB acts similarly to TWF it won't substitute for the feat for the purposes of prerequisites. Probably the primary reason is because while it behaves similarly to TWF it actually alters it rather significantly in that it allows you to make all of your attacks with a primary weapon, rather than making a combination of primary and off-hand attacks (Which is what TWF does).
** spoiler omitted **...
I see your point and actually have to agree because I wasn't taking into account that using mwf (not the feat) is an option when making a full attack and should be treated as a special full attack action thusly. Also, I understand being frustrated. And yes, until official clarification is made my paizo, this will keep coming up because its fantacy RP game racism for rules until then :) I oppoligize officially to anyone else I've offended with my Kasatha rantings lately, I just love this race because I'm a big fan of anything with 4 arms. More is better to me.
I understand...once these kind of rules situation get answered (or someone is killed in the name of one side) I would very much love to play one. I even made a few PC's already of different classes but because some of the things I would like to do are ambiguous I have not brought them before my GM.
(When Dark Souls 2 comes out I will be avoiding the forums here, frustration from that game would probably push me to getting myself banned on here)
I always find it odd when there is so much debate on things that there is no need to debate. Its pretty simple, Spell Strike, is its own action that is not compatable with TWF or Flurry of blows. It doesnt substitute for the feats for TWF and it should not do so. the TWF analogy is simply there to demonstrate that one of your hands is 100% occupied with casting a spell, you cannot use that hand for anything else that requires more than a free action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I always find it odd when there is so much debate on things that there is no need to debate. Its pretty simple, Spell Strike, is its own action that is not compatable with TWF or Flurry of blows. It doesnt substitute for the feats for TWF and it should not do so. the TWF analogy is simply there to demonstrate that one of your hands is 100% occupied with casting a spell, you cannot use that hand for anything else that requires more than a free action.
Spell Combat. Spellstrike is something else.
Spell Combat. Spellstrike is something else.I always find it odd when there is so much debate on things that there is no need to debate. Its pretty simple, Spell Strike, is its own action that is not compatable with TWF or Flurry of blows. It doesnt substitute for the feats for TWF and it should not do so. the TWF analogy is simply there to demonstrate that one of your hands is 100% occupied with casting a spell, you cannot use that hand for anything else that requires more than a free action.
woops brain fart there, spellstrike actually works fine with FoB and Twf provided its something like chill touch in the following rounds. but my bad i ment spell combat.
|
I have mentioned this in other threads.
A Kasatha magus can use his Spell Combat and take his other two attacks with his other hands. The pentalties would be the normal ones without the TWF/MWF feats.
If you have the boon, does it mention MWF in relation to the Kasatha, allowing the race to take the feat from the Bestiary?
For those that don't know, there is a racial trait that allows a Kasatha to take 4 attacks (an attack for each arm) and the entry in the book is a monk.
TWF, MWF, and FoB are three separate actions, all of which are full attacks. Spell Combat is not a full attack but instead is a full round action. TWF requires two weapons. MWF requires multiple weapons. Only FoB can be used with one weapon. TWF and MWF allows you to make extra attacks with your off-hand(s). FoB allows you to make an extra attack without using your off-hand. You cannot make off hand attacks with your primary hand.True, except that a monk can make a twf/mwf full attack action instead of using flurry. If he does this, all off-hand attacks he makes are treated as main-hand attacks as stated in the Unarmed Strike monk class ability.
Actually what the book says is "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed." That could mean, that that the monk version of IUS dosent allow the off-hand attack that normal IUS does.
If it had said "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack penalty for a monk striking unarmed. " you would have been correct.
I have mentioned this in other threads.
A Kasatha magus can use his Spell Combat and take his other two attacks with his other hands. The pentalties would be the normal ones without the TWF/MWF feats.
If you have the boon, does it mention MWF in relation to the Kasatha, allowing the race to take the feat from the Bestiary?
For those that don't know, there is a racial trait that allows a Kasatha to take 4 attacks (an attack for each arm) and the entry in the book is a monk.
There is alot of selective reading going on there. 1) the Kasatha in the book's flurry of blows line shows... 2 attacks like every other monk. 2) the racial trait multi-armed is simply re-iterating existing game rules that 1 hand is primary and all others are secondary. Ie its telling the reader the character has 4 arms it makes no changes to any other rules. The kasatha has all other penalties and makes no exceptions to the rules.
and doing 3 on its own line because its important. YOU CANNOT TWO WEAPON FIGHT AND USE SPELL COMBAT.. it does not mater how many arms you have you cannot do them together.
Sigh Why are there so many rules questions about a Monster race?
Yes, he could hold wands or rods in those hands or other weapons for the rounds that he is not using spell combat.
The common usage of "iterative attacks" on this website is in reference to multiple attacks gained from a high BAB, not as a reference to any attack that occurs after the first.off-hand attacks ARE iterative attacks.
Yes, that's true, but the books when mentioning iterative also make mention of off-hand attacks and other sourses of attacks (its also mentioned this way in a few FAQs). Because of this, we as a community should get away from the assumption that iterarives are ONLY from high bab. The dictionary definition would suggest an iterative attack as any attack made after the first, from a single sourse. So with the full twf feat chain you would have two seporate iteratives, one set from main hand, one from offhand. This concept is not supported in the pathfinder rules, but it is how we understand things to work in our minds using logic.
Either way, I'm done with arguing the kasatha issue for now. Its not worth waisting my time until paizo explains their intent for how the race was designed to be used. Who knows, maybe your two extra hands were never supposed to make attacks at all! But we won't know until they speak up on it...perhaps someone should make an FAQ request to clarify the race as a whole and its intent...won't be me, the kasatha has singlehandedly made me a hated man on these boards...
@brightshadow360: Sadly I think the one option you want least is the correct option. As Durngrun points out, two-weapon fighting (the fighting method that is affected by the feat of the same name) and FoB are both separate 'actions' for the purposes of activation, and so by RAW they wouldn't stack.
And as far as I can tell, even though FoB acts similarly to TWF it won't substitute for the feat for the purposes of prerequisites. Probably the primary reason is because while it behaves similarly to TWF it actually alters it rather significantly in that it allows you to make all of your attacks with a primary weapon, rather than making a combination of primary and off-hand attacks (Which is what TWF does).
I believe you are probably right. They seem to be separate actions. The question now arises as to whether it should stay this way. As we pester Paizo to give the official ruling, should we try to have them rewrite flurry into two separate abilities (A: free TWF feats and B: bonuses and reduced penalties when using monk weapons while TWF) or would such a thing be broken (in which case they merely put an entry in the FAQ).
You know which one I am rooting for. Unfortunately, I probably won't get it as it is much easier for them to put an entry in the FAQ and wash their hands of the issue rather than rewrite a critical part of a class and edit many of it's archetypes.
They have no reason To change fob or even make a FAQ about how it works with mwf. In the first case the current model supports their general support of. Single class. In the second why te write rules To supper a single monster race who's state block is clear on its attacks. Any em can. Easily house rule any grey areas.
They have no reason To change fob or even make a FAQ about how it works with mwf. In the first case the current model supports their general support of. Single class. In the second why te write rules To supper a single monster race who's state block is clear on its attacks. Any em can. Easily house rule any grey areas.
because a) monster race or not, its still also a player race as well, and as such its a very enticing choice to play because of exactly what it is and what it can do.
and b)having clarification on how MWF works with ANYTHING is needed, even for monster races used strictly for building NPC baddies because for those who like to stick strictly to the letter of the law on the rules, its HIGHLY unclear how a GM is supposed to play a class with both because the rules as written are written how they are ASSUMING everything only has two arms. there are still plenty of races (3 off the top of my head, two of which can be PC races) that have more than 2 arms. the monster building rules are in the book, same as all the rest, and must be followed just as strictly as rules governing playable characters. so then, if im building a monster out of a Kasatha to throw at my PCs as a BBEG, how am i to know what i can/can't do with it by RAW unless there is clarification on this?
this isn't just about being able to do this as a player. it also impacts GM's as well and the game as a whole. Bestiary 5 or Advanced Race Guide 2 might have a host of new multi-armed races in them that, without clarification, will suffer this same problem because as of right now the rules all assume 2 arms. this is a problem to me, i'm sorry if you dont agree, but the fact that even 1 race exists with more than 2 arms means that we cannot alow the rules to make that assumption.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sigh, i'll respond to this once as I dont want to derail the origonal thread intent. But, theres half a billion kasath related threads whuch mostly come accross to me as 'how can i cheese mwf'
A few easy rules to follow solve most of the confusion.
1) Examine the action types of what you ae trying to do, do they just modify an existing action, or are they their own action. This right here solves about every 'does X work with flurry of blows' queston.
2) do i have to write up new math to justify how X and Y work together. If the answer is 'yes' to this you can likely assume the abilities were not intended to work in conjunction.
So to reiterate this using the spell combat example. Spell combat is designed with the assumption you are making a main hand weapon attack, and an off hand hattack with a spell. it applies a blanket -2 to all attacks. it doesnt actually specifiy this but the -2 to both attacks fits for this math.
Now if you suppose attacking with multiple arms is supported with spellcombat what is the penalties? is it -6 main hand -8 offhand like a non trained person trying to MWF has or does spellbombat treat you as having TWF and let you attack with all your weapon attacks at -4?
See the fact that i have to make math suppositions suggests they dont work together which is then further supported by the rules. However Why do i need Paizo to write an errata for a single4 armed humanoid creatre i can fix the grey areas for in about 30 seconds?
In regards to the main topic of the thread, as i said before. Paizo classes are as far as i know not ever written to facilitate dipping, they seek to reward characters for doing the full class. As far as i know monks were deliberately written to prevent 1 level dips for TWF that has no stat requirements.
BTW sorry if the kassath stuff added to a thread derail, i just wanted to use it to support how DMs dont need paizo to re-write rules for single monsters.
They have no reason To change fob or even make a FAQ about how it works with mwf. In the first case the current model supports their general support of. Single class. In the second why te write rules To supper a single monster race who's state block is clear on its attacks. Any em can. Easily house rule any grey areas.
I am not referring to MWF. That is a different (though related and interesting) topic. My discussion is about TWF for a typical race (in this case a halfling if your wondering)who has a 1 or 8 lvl monk dip (the other class is irrelevant, though it is a magus hence why the spell combat bit got started).
We need a clarification for the class in general in relation to TWF because flurry is exceedingly close to TWF. it just feels really wrong for TWF to be reduced to feat tax and then for the better version of it that your class comes with to not work in conjunction. at the very least, option #2 should be OK balance wise (if they rewrite it which they need to do anyway judging by how much grief the core monk tends to get).
In addition, putting aside my personal feelings, I wouldn't put it past players to not ask on the forums first and then spring this topic on an unsuspecting DM.
In regards to the main topic of the thread, as i said before. Paizo classes are as far as i know not ever written to facilitate dipping, they seek to reward characters for doing the full class. As far as i know monks were deliberately written to prevent 1 level dips for TWF that has no stat requirements.BTW sorry if the kassath stuff added to a thread derail, i just wanted to use it to support how DMs dont need paizo to re-write rules for single monsters.
no problem. the kassath stuff is interesting anyway. As for paizos tendency to dissuade level dipping, they are going to keep hearing me complain and level dip mages in monk UNTILL THEY FINALLY GET AROUND TO GIVING ME MY SUPERSAIYAN AAAAAAAUGGGH.