could a fighter with the mutation warrior template and a Vestigial arm wield a great sword use a shield?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 60 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

As i see it he could though he would probably have to buy custom armor because of the extra arm?

Sovereign Court

fel_horfrost wrote:
As i see it he could though he would probably have to buy custom armor because of the extra arm?

You're going to want to look at Battle Alchemist builds, for they have similar issues. But, with RAW and Faq'd on our side, yes you can indeed. You also don't need to spend any extra money on armor as far as I've ran into, and my gm's are great sticklers for the details.

My own personal alchemist has 4 arms, 2 hold a bardiche reach weapon, 1 holds a shield, the 4th arm is used for either bombs, mutagens, extracts, etc., anything a good spare hand could be used for.

I can safely say it's one of the funnest builds i've ever made, short of my inquisitor who is known to swear so much that he lit a ship full of sailors on fire (blistering invective rocks).


I see him wearing a chainmail with one over sized sleeve to hide his extra arm.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Indeed.

Two-handed weapon + shield + free hand is totally acceptable.

If you wield a reach weapon, and wear a gauntlet on your free hand, you'll threaten everything within 10 feet.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I thought this had come up before with a person wanting to duel wield greatswords. I thought the answer back then was that they could not.


Not wanting to dual wield just want to have a shield for extra ac.


You could hold two greatswords but you couldn't make more than your BAB attacks with them. so +8/+3 could make two, one with each if he wanted. So while you can hold two, it doesn't do anything for you. Going 1 with a shield is good, you just can't bash with the shield.


Just want to go sword and board with a great sword or large bastard sword and a heavy shield or tower.


Nefreet wrote:

Indeed.

Two-handed weapon + shield + free hand is totally acceptable.

If you wield a reach weapon, and wear a gauntlet on your free hand, you'll threaten everything within 10 feet.

wouldn't the shield threaten too?

The gaunlet would mnot threaten as it is listed as an unarmed attack, it just let you deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike. It still rpvokes i thought.


I'd avoid the tower, I feel that the -2 to all attack rolls is not worth the +2 ac you get.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Shields are weapons.

Shields threaten.

Consider a reach weapon.


Is there a reach weapon that deals 2 dice of base weapon damage?
As with all the new vital strike feats in the acg this is a vital strike build.


isn't there only 1 new vital strike feat? Blooded Arcane Strike for bloodragers

Okay I checked and I forgot the ones that add a condition if you were druid/ranger.

So which vital strike feat are you interested in with your fighter?


All but the arcane ones as this character will have Martial flexibility and can pick up any of them on the fly after level 6. I'm picking up nature magic at 3rd to meet the prerequisites and will have believers hands at level 1 for a poor mans lay on hands.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
fel_horfrost wrote:

Is there a reach weapon that deals 2 dice of base weapon damage?

As with all the new vital strike feats in the acg this is a vital strike build.

Dwarven Longhammer, Guisarme, and Ranseur.


I wouldn't use real feats for vital strike. use your flexibility to pick it up and the condition you want for it.

Grand Lodge

The only reason I can see you wanting a reach weapon with 2 dice for use with Vital Strike is if you're misinterpreting Devastating Strike. ..why exactly do you want a 2 damage dice weapon?


Impact makes 2 dice 3 dice enlarge makes it 4dice vital strike makes it 8 dice improved vs makes it 16 dice and greater vs makes it 32 dice per strike. So with the new status effect riders vital strike is looking nasty.
If i get lucky i might talk my gm into a chainsaw. 3d6 base damage goodness lol

Grand Lodge

fel_horfrost wrote:

Impact makes 2 dice 3 dice enlarge makes it 4dice vital strike makes it 8 dice improved vs makes it 16 dice and greater vs makes it 32 dice per strike. So with the new status effect riders vital strike is looking nasty.

If i get lucky i might talk my gm into a chainsaw. 3d6 base damage goodness lol

So you're just looking for a large damage weapon. That's different than more dice. For example, a Greataxe does 1d12 which is more than a Scythe at 2d4.

And if I'm following that sentence correctly, you're misunderstanding what Vital Strike does. Take a Greatsword that does 2d6.

Base: 2d6
Vital Strike: 4d6
Improved VS: 6d6
Greater VS: 8d6

It doesn't multiply each time. It just adds the base damage dice again.

Also, Impact doesn't straight up turn 2 dice into 3 dice and enlarge doesn't straight up turn 3 dice into 4 dice. It depends on the weapon. For example, a large Scythe does 2d6 while a medium Scythe does 2d4. It depends on the starting dice. See the medium/tiny/large damage dice chart on the equipment page. For anything beyond that, the only thing to go with is the Improved Natural Attack chart from the bestiary.


Yes and add in the impact weapon enchantment to up a great swords damage to 3d6, then drink a potion of enlarge person to make the greatswords base damage 4d6 now add vital strike for 8d6, next we add improved vital strike for 12d6, and greater vital strike makes it 16d6 per strike and wave dr/- bye bye.

Dark Archive

or you could use a large size bastard sword and make those d6 into d8s


so your progression goes 2->3->4->8->12->16
16d6 = 16*3.5 = 56 average damage +static + condition
using full attack
4d6+static * 2 hit out of 4 = 28 + 2 static VS better if static < 28
4d6+static * 3 hit out of 4 = 42 + 3 static VS better if static < 14
4d6+static * 4 hit out of 4 = 56 + 4 static VS better if static < 1

power attack = +15 damage
two-handed str(8) = 12 damage
weapon spec and greater = 4 = 31

So using 3 vital strike feats can make your standard action almost like hitting twice, on average. PLUS more cause you're picking up feats for the condition. And the gold for impact. So I'd say don't infest a ton. Use your flex feats to pick vital and condition strike when you want to use it. And if you're worried about DR there's penetrating strike and greater.


Chainsaw 3d6 -> impact chainsaw 4d6 -> enlarge person + impact chainsaw 5d6 ->
Enlarge person + impact chainsaw + vital strike 10d6 -> enlarge person + impact chainsaw + improved vital strike 15d6 -> enlarge person + impact chainsaw + greater vital strike 20d6 yay. One can hope.


I rarely hit after the first attack anyway so for me vital strike is better.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Mahtobedis wrote:
I thought this had come up before with a person wanting to duel wield greatswords. I thought the answer back then was that they could not.

Indeed. Dual-wielding Greatswords is not allowed.

But Greatsword/Shield is.

Sean K Reynolds, the Designer behind disallowing dual-wielding two-handed weapons, clarified that two-handed weapon and shield works just fine (though I believe he also stated that that wasn't the intention of the Vestigial Arm discovery).


fel_horfrost wrote:
I rarely hit after the first attack anyway so for me vital strike is better.

How are you a fighter and rarely hitting? As a fighter my third attack usually can hit on a 4. And if you don't take flexible fighter and keep weapon training you can get easy hits with mutagen too.

lv 16 fighter
weapon training +3
weapon focus and greater +2
power attack -5
bab +16/+11/+6/+1
str(16base+2race+6mutagen+6belt) +10
weapon +4
Gloves of Dueling +2
bonus to attacks +32/+27/+22/+17
target CR 18 = AC 33
rolls needed 2/6/11/16
This isn't even super optimized, I'm sure you can push this higher with some looking, this is just what I thought up off hand. But this is good odds of getting 2 hits in at least.

This example also shows why furious focus is bad idea. If your first attack is having a hard time missing there's more to look at then going for furious focus. Since this first attack can hit on a 2 since a 1 always misses. A +5 for that first hit isn't really going to help at all.


Cursed dice and over optimizing dm's mostly.
Love trying to hit a ac of 30 plus at first level and it gets worse from there.
Or there are no ye old magic shops to buy that kind of stuff.


If the DM is making it harder than it should then martials will have a problem. Are their CMD's as high? Their saves? If so I don't know if you'll get your condition to stick.

BTW if you have an example of how he got AC 30 lv1 or even lv3 I'd love to hear it :D


Full plate tower shields and full defence for starters add dodge and you're getting close. Now you finally beat this monster down and poof the body and all the gear goes by by you get the idea now.


Wouldn't be a hard fight if it's using total defense since it can't attack that way. Also sounds like more of a problem with your GM then anything else.


Tpks tend to be common around our table.


We have gotten off topic.
So two hand weapon plus shield sounds like a go with a extra arm.


I would laugh in that GM's face and usurp him quick. That just someone trying to feel powerful. He might as well say "rocks fall, you die"


Chess Pwn wrote:


BTW if you have an example of how he got AC 30 lv1 or even lv3 I'd love to hear it :D

lvl 3 kitsune brawler in fox shape that someone applied shield (or/and mage armor) to and is fighting defensively

armor break down
26 dex=8ac=(18+4(mutagen)+4(fox shape))
natural armor=+3 ac((mutagen/fox shape)
sheild = 4 shield ac
fighting defensively= 2 dodge ac
alternately total defense= 4 dodge ac
mythril chain shirt=5 ac medium 2 ac tiny

total ac = 8+4+2(4)+4+10+2[5]=
30 normal
(32) total defense
[33] mage armor+shield
([35]) mage armor+shield+total defense
BAB= 7 before total defense 3 after (assuming weapon finesse)

otherwise shield and great-sword with vestigial limbs works perfectly


Nefreet wrote:
Mahtobedis wrote:
I thought this had come up before with a person wanting to duel wield greatswords. I thought the answer back then was that they could not.

Indeed. Dual-wielding Greatswords is not allowed.

But Greatsword/Shield is.

Sean K Reynolds, the Designer behind disallowing dual-wielding two-handed weapons, clarified that two-handed weapon and shield works just fine (though I believe he also stated that that wasn't the intention of the Vestigial Arm discovery).

i think holding a shield for extra AC was intended, im not sure attacking with shield as well is the intention or allowed. the vestigial arm thing is very cluttered and confusing.

i am wondering about the gauntlet and reach weapon though, i know theres been alot of debates about it that i gave up but was it ever varified that u do indeed provoke with a gauntlet weilding a 2 handed reach weapon?


Shield for ac was the idea.


Well if you're having fun with it. If you're not your GM has way to much of a Me vs. Them mentality. And I know as a player I wouldn't like that. If you and your group agree, talk to him about it. Either have him give you more stuff or tone down his stuff or play a set Adventure path.


Well the way i was planning to use the great sword was main arm + Vestigial arm wield the sword and the other Normal arm holding the shield on the opposite side.
If it matters.


It will totally work. I Had a alchemist companion with four arms, a glaive,a sword, and a shield. He never got any extra attacks, but he threatened the hell out a lot of squares. Muticlassed him with fighter and gave him combat reflexes and eventually whirwind attack. He was like the best riot cop ever. Pretty sure it was all legal.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Nefreet wrote:
Mahtobedis wrote:
I thought this had come up before with a person wanting to duel wield greatswords. I thought the answer back then was that they could not.

Indeed. Dual-wielding Greatswords is not allowed.

But Greatsword/Shield is.

Sean K Reynolds, the Designer behind disallowing dual-wielding two-handed weapons, clarified that two-handed weapon and shield works just fine (though I believe he also stated that that wasn't the intention of the Vestigial Arm discovery).

I am pretty dang certain holding a shield, was one of the intended results.

In fact, I believe the quote can still be found, somewhere.

Scarab Sages

Mahtobedis wrote:
I thought this had come up before with a person wanting to duel wield greatswords. I thought the answer back then was that they could not.

Reread the Vestigial Arm discovery: vestigial arms are expressly permitted to wield, or help wield, weapons.

Grand Lodge

Nefreet wrote:
Mahtobedis wrote:
I thought this had come up before with a person wanting to duel wield greatswords. I thought the answer back then was that they could not.

Indeed. Dual-wielding Greatswords is not allowed.

But Greatsword/Shield is.

Sean K Reynolds, the Designer behind disallowing dual-wielding two-handed weapons, clarified that two-handed weapon and shield works just fine (though I believe he also stated that that wasn't the intention of the Vestigial Arm discovery).

This came up in a game last night with someone wanting to Dual-Wield long bows. I know it's not legal, but where is the quote that says it isn't?


To clarify again: you can dual-wield greatswords; you just can't TWF with them. If you have three non-TWF iterative attacks, you can smack twice with one greatsword and once with the other. You just can't TWF with them because that goes over the "two metaphorical hands" limit. You could do the same with bows, but like greatswords it wouldn't really gain you anything. Now, greatsword and bow? That at least would let you switch-hit at will without wasting actions.

Grand Lodge

blahpers wrote:
To clarify again: you can dual-wield greatswords; you just can't TWF with them. If you have three non-TWF iterative attacks, you can smack twice with one greatsword and once with the other. You just can't TWF with them because that goes over the "two metaphorical hands" limit. You could do the same with bows, but like greatswords it wouldn't really gain you anything. Now, greatsword and bow? That at least would let you switch-hit at will without wasting actions.

Well sure, but this wanted to TWF with two two-handed weapons. And the "two metaphorical hands" limit isn't in the CRB which is why I'm asking where the quote is.


The "only two hands worth of effort" rule is one of the unwritten rules of the game that the devs gave as reasoning for why you can't use a greatsword and armor spikes to two-weapon fight. You can find it in the discussion on that FAQ, someone more knowledgeable than me can probably find it.


It comes from the FAQ that says "You already used two hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make an attack."

So since an off-hand is only a part of two-weapon fighting this is saying that if you use two hands to wield/use a weapon then you have used both your "metaphorical hands" because you can't make an off-hand attack with a kick or armor spikes or the like, even though those don't use any hands. "Metaphorical hands" is either something a dev or somebody said commenting about this and how it works and the term has just kinda stuck.

Sovereign Court

Nefreet wrote:

Indeed.

Two-handed weapon + shield + free hand is totally acceptable.

If you wield a reach weapon, and wear a gauntlet on your free hand, you'll threaten everything within 10 feet.

I am doing this with 2 dwarven chain flails (dorn dergar)

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
claudekennilol wrote:
blahpers wrote:
To clarify again: you can dual-wield greatswords; you just can't TWF with them. If you have three non-TWF iterative attacks, you can smack twice with one greatsword and once with the other. You just can't TWF with them because that goes over the "two metaphorical hands" limit. You could do the same with bows, but like greatswords it wouldn't really gain you anything. Now, greatsword and bow? That at least would let you switch-hit at will without wasting actions.
Well sure, but this wanted to TWF with two two-handed weapons. And the "two metaphorical hands" limit isn't in the CRB which is why I'm asking where the quote is.

It's logic that stems from the Armor Spikes FAQ.

It's "unwritten" because the Designers considered it to be such a basic assumption of the game that it didn't need to be written down anywhere. Obviously, hindsight being 20/20, they probably would have done it differently had they seen then the arguments that have taken place since.


So, vestigial arm give you an extra hand but no an extra "hand"?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Nicos wrote:
So, vestigial arm give you an extra hand but no an extra "hand"?

Exactly.

1 to 50 of 60 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / could a fighter with the mutation warrior template and a Vestigial arm wield a great sword use a shield? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.