Does this 26 punches pummeling style work?


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 189 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Thomas Long 175 wrote:

Really if you wanna flat out get into it, this is a permissive rules system. You have to have permission to do something in order to do it. The rules explicitly call out you can wield a 2nd weapon in your offhand for one extra attack.

Any more and its not two weapon fighting because its not a 2nd weapon and thus you do not by RAW gain additional attacks.

I see your point. My point is that we have a feat that implies otherwise and monsters without the proper permissions that function according to those implied rules as well.


Calth wrote:

Technically yes, that is the case, but creatures are run by GM fiat as is, so it doesn't matter that they don't follow the rules that PCs must follow.

You can see whatever implied extension you want, extra arms don't add extra attacks for PCs. If they did, every single martial in existence would be a Kasatha because it is that overpowered.

Actually it does matter, it matters quite a lot. While I agree it is strong getting extra arms isn't the easiest thing to do. The rules are laid out equally NPCs and PC follow the same rules modified by explicit exceptions. If it's not quantified it's not a rule.


Onyxlion wrote:
Calth wrote:

Technically yes, that is the case, but creatures are run by GM fiat as is, so it doesn't matter that they don't follow the rules that PCs must follow.

You can see whatever implied extension you want, extra arms don't add extra attacks for PCs. If they did, every single martial in existence would be a Kasatha because it is that overpowered.

Actually it does matter, it matters quite a lot. While I agree it is strong getting extra arms isn't the easiest thing to do. The rules are laid out equally NPCs and PC follow the same rules modified by explicit exceptions. If it's not quantified it's not a rule.

Except it isn't hard any more, there is a four-armed PC race. Do they automatically have double the number of melee attacks of every other pc?


chaoseffect wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:

Really if you wanna flat out get into it, this is a permissive rules system. You have to have permission to do something in order to do it. The rules explicitly call out you can wield a 2nd weapon in your offhand for one extra attack.

Any more and its not two weapon fighting because its not a 2nd weapon and thus you do not by RAW gain additional attacks.

I see your point. My point is that we have a feat that implies otherwise and monsters without the proper permissions that function according to those implied rules as well.

Indeed, though those monsters existed before the original FAQ in question where they made the crazed ruling, and to my knowledge no such monsters have been produced since.

So really, they're more of grandfathered in than anything else.


So we can all agree that Mariliths and every creature in the bestiaries that have multiple arms and use weapons for extra attack need errata because as the rules are written they do not function because they lack a racial ability that specifies they get more attacks?

As nonsensical as that is, that is how the rules seem to RAW lie.


Calth wrote:
Onyxlion wrote:
Calth wrote:

Technically yes, that is the case, but creatures are run by GM fiat as is, so it doesn't matter that they don't follow the rules that PCs must follow.

You can see whatever implied extension you want, extra arms don't add extra attacks for PCs. If they did, every single martial in existence would be a Kasatha because it is that overpowered.

Actually it does matter, it matters quite a lot. While I agree it is strong getting extra arms isn't the easiest thing to do. The rules are laid out equally NPCs and PC follow the same rules modified by explicit exceptions. If it's not quantified it's not a rule.
Except it isn't hard any more, there is a four-armed PC race. Do they automatically have double the number of melee attacks of every other pc?

Yes

Multi-Armed (4 RP)

Prerequisites: None.
Benefit: Members of this race possess three arms. A member of this race can wield multiple weapons, but only one hand is its primary hand, and all others are off hands. It can also use its hands for other purposes that require free hands.
Special: This trait can be taken up to twice. When it is taken a second time, the race gains a fourth arm.


Pretty much, the rules flat out state you can do this with a 2nd weapon and never give an ability for more than 2 weapons, though it has been FAQ'd that you can alternate between different weapons so long as you don't get more attacks than you normally would.


chaoseffect wrote:

So we can all agree that Mariliths and every creature in the bestiaries that have multiple arms and use weapons for extra attack need errata because as the rules are written they do not function because they lack a racial ability that specifies they get more attacks?

As nonsensical as that is, that is how the rules seem to RAW lie.

That is currently the case. Or errata multi-weapon fighting to be unavailable to PCs and grant the additional attacks.


Calth wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:

I'm sorry, but extra limbs doesn't grant more attacks. There was explicitly an FAQ on such things where there is a number of "hands" that are metaphysical, a main hand and an off hand. The mere presence of more limbs does not grant more "off hands."

You can 2 weapon fight, but you can't 3 weapon fight, or 4 weapon fight.

So I'm sorry, you don't get more attacks based on your number of limbs unless you use natural attacks, in which case you are hard limited by the eidolon part.

Aka, extra limbs does nothing in and of itself to grant you more attacks except allowing more limbs to put natural attacks or for you to switch between attacking with.

Could you point me in the direction of the FAQ? Because as you are saying, more limbs does not give more attacks, I wonder what the feat Multiweapon Fighting does besides literally nothing.
Its a bestiary feat, it does literally nothing for pcs.

There is no rule saying PC's cant' use monster feats. It is a common fallacy around here, but nobody can provide quotes.

According to the general feat rules if you qualify for a feat you can use it. The monster feat rules do have a specific exception overriding this.

Note: I am not saying the OP can make 26 attacks, but if he can't it wont be because monster feats don't work for him. With that aside the eidolon is not a PC.


Quote:
Limbs (Ex): An eidolon grows an additional pair of limbs. These limbs can take one of two forms. They can be made into legs, complete with feet. Each pair of legs increases the eidolon's base speed by 10 feet. Alternatively, they can be made into arms, complete with hands. The eidolon does not gain any additional natural attacks for an additional pair of arms, but it can take other evolutions that add additional attacks (such as claws or a slam). Arms that have hands can be used to wield weapons, if the eidolon is proficient. This evolution can be selected more than once.

As this doesn't have a specific stipulation similar to the Alchemist's Vestigial Arm discovery, it does in fact allow addition attacks with the limbs (just not free natural attacks). As well, an eidolon's maximum attacks only relates to natural attacks.

Quote:

Multiweapon Fighting (Combat)

This multi-armed creature is skilled at making attacks with multiple weapons.

Prerequisites: Dex 13, three or more hands.
Benefit: Penalties for fighting with multiple weapons are reduced by –2 with the primary hand and by –6 with off hands.
Normal: A creature without this feat takes a –6 penalty on attacks made with its primary hand and a –10 penalty on attacks made with all of its off hands. (It has one primary hand, and all the others are off hands.) See Two-Weapon Fighting in the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook.
Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms.

And yes, you could in fact use Multiweapon Fighting with them. The FAQ being referenced has nothing to do with it. However, to address the original post, I don't believe that the TWF gained from flurrying would instead be MWF.


Calth wrote:
Except it isn't hard any more, there is a four-armed PC race. Do they automatically have double the number of melee attacks of every other pc?

I would say yes they get extra attacks if they want to take the horrible, debilitating negatives.

Thomas Long 175 wrote:

Indeed, though those monsters existed before the original FAQ in question where they made the crazed ruling, and to my knowledge no such monsters have been produced since.

So really, they're more of grandfathered in than anything else.

I still don't see what the FAQ has to do at all with what we are talking about to be honest. The FAQ is saying that you cannot use a designated two-handed weapon and still get off hand attacks. That's cool and all, but we aren't talking about two-handed weapons in any capacity, which is what the FAQ obsesses over.


Thomas Long 175 wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:

Really if you wanna flat out get into it, this is a permissive rules system. You have to have permission to do something in order to do it. The rules explicitly call out you can wield a 2nd weapon in your offhand for one extra attack.

Any more and its not two weapon fighting because its not a 2nd weapon and thus you do not by RAW gain additional attacks.

I see your point. My point is that we have a feat that implies otherwise and monsters without the proper permissions that function according to those implied rules as well.

Indeed, though those monsters existed before the original FAQ in question where they made the crazed ruling, and to my knowledge no such monsters have been produced since.

So really, they're more of grandfathered in than anything else.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/monstrous-humanoids/shobh ad

From bestiary 4, 4 armed fights with 2 2 handed longswords. Which invalidates their own FAQ.


wraithstrike wrote:


There is no rule saying PC's cant' use monster feats. It is a common fallacy around here, but nobody can provide quotes.

According to the general feat rules if you qualify for a feat you can use it. The monster feat rules do have a specific exception overriding this.

Note: I am not saying the OP can make 26 attacks, but if he can't it wont be because monster feats don't work for him. With that aside the eidolon is not a PC.

I am not saying he cant take it, I am saying it does not provide a mechanical benefit. I know PCs can take monster feats.


With regard to the OP you get slam attacks. Typically slams attacks are made with arms. At the ends of those arms you would have hands. Hands make fist. If you have X amount of weapons arms, and you have multiweapon fighting then the any hand other than the primary hand can make an attack.

It seems to work by RAW, but don't expect for any GM to allow it. If he does don't be surprised if he uses it against the party. If you are the GM well I still advise against it.


Onyxlion wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:

Really if you wanna flat out get into it, this is a permissive rules system. You have to have permission to do something in order to do it. The rules explicitly call out you can wield a 2nd weapon in your offhand for one extra attack.

Any more and its not two weapon fighting because its not a 2nd weapon and thus you do not by RAW gain additional attacks.

I see your point. My point is that we have a feat that implies otherwise and monsters without the proper permissions that function according to those implied rules as well.

Indeed, though those monsters existed before the original FAQ in question where they made the crazed ruling, and to my knowledge no such monsters have been produced since.

So really, they're more of grandfathered in than anything else.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/monstrous-humanoids/shobh ad

From bestiary 4, 4 armed fights with 2 2 handed longswords.

Fair enough, though that now still brings up the point of you can only wield a 2nd weapon as per RAW for an extra attack. A 3rd wouldn't do anything per the core rulebook.

Two Weapon Fighting wrote:
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways. First, if your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light. Second, the Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6.

Two Weapon Fighting

Edit: Wraith, the thing is granted extra limbs from the limbs evolution from an eidolon. It specifically calls out you need to take extra natural attacks in order to get natural attacks from them, and even so would then be capped by the maximum number of natural attacks an eidolon could make as the ability specifies as such.


Except it does provide a benefit. The FAQ is about creatures with two limbs. Not creatures with more than two.

(The confusion related to PCs not being able to take monster feats is because of Pathfinder Society's limitation of it.)


wraithstrike wrote:

With regard to the OP you get slam attacks. Typically slams attacks are made with arms. At the ends of those arms you would have hands. Hands make fist. If you have X amount of weapons arms, and you have multiweapon fighting then the any hand other than the primary hand can make an attack.

It seems to work by RAW, but don't expect for any GM to allow it. If he does don't be surprised if he uses it against the party. If you are the GM well I still advise against it.

The current argument is actually about whether RAW you actually gain the ability to make more attacks by having more arms beyond two as two weapon fighting rules only specify one extra attack.


Calth wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:

The offhand in question is not a physical arm. It is clarified to be a metaphysical rule which was meant to stipulate that base a PC shouldn't get more than 1.5 STR per attack, either flat out from two handing or 1 + .5 for two weapons.

The hand in question is not an actual hand, its basically a "slot" that you can either subsume with an off hand attack or by using a two handed weapon. It does not grow in number based off your limbs, as its not a real hand.

The issue with this explanation is that all creatures who use Muliweapon Fighting actually can't. They don't function. Multiweapon Fighting does nothing. I can see you explanation making sense in the context of two-handing for extra damage, but this is something different entirely.
Multi-weapon mastery works for creatures because they don't follow the same rules as pcs. If you want your bestiary mob to have arms grant attacks, they do. The same creature as a PC wouldn't gain those extra attacks.

Multiweapon mastery is a special monster ability that removes the penalites that multiweapon fighting would have given.

In other words if the marilith had multiweapon fighting instead of multiweapon mastery she would still get all of her attacks, but all of the offhand attacks would have a penalty.

multiweapon mastery = multiweapon fighting with no penalties for offhand attack.


The Archive wrote:

Except it does provide a benefit. The FAQ is about creatures with two limbs. Not creatures with more than two.

(The confusion related to PCs not being able to take monster feats is because of Pathfinder Society's limitation of it.)

Show me a rule that says having arms grants you attacks. A PC with 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ..... infinity arms has the exact same number of attacks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also, the Limbs evolution doesn't give free slam attacks. Just limbs.


chaoseffect wrote:
Zwordsman wrote:
Need the arms, then need to buy the natural attacks for it, get that monster feat thats like TWF so your negatives aren't horrible. then, get Feral Combat training with the natural attack, and i think? it'll work

I don't think you understand Natural Attacks. They have nothing to do with two weapon fighting or BAB. You get them all in a full attack regardless.

What he's saying is essentially he wants to use his 26 hands to each use a manufactured weapon to attack, which is a thing. It's what Two Weapon Fighting does for people with two hands, and what Multiweapon Fighting does for things with more than two hands.

I don't think I misunderstood. I do understand natural attacks.

I didn't cite TWF or BAB. I did suggest the monster only feat that is similar to TWF, because his base arms do not have a natural attack to them , only Unarmed (which does count as both natural and weapon but work off BAB). I didn't see him saying he'd have 23 extra attacks. I typed this back before his clarification on wanting to use weapons/unarmed strikes. but my tablet went to sleep/low power mode and didn't finish posting until I plugged it in at home about 40mins ago.

Though now I see that he wanted Unarmed strikes with his arms, in which he would need Multiweapo fighting because he's using nothing but weapons. 'cause those are gonna be some insano negatives.

Also on the various "how many attacks" I do see the weirdness. but heres my 2c (I don't know if this is for or against it's just not a point I saw brought up).
TWF grant one extra off hand attack per BAB (as the feat line goes up). Does Multiweapon fighting then allow: First primary BAB hit, then all the multi arm hits, then the 2nd normal bab hit and third and so on? Because at the moment I only see one multi weapon fighting beastry feat, so It would only apply to the first BAB hit. Feel like it was meant to be used (and is used way easier by) natural attacks.

TWF feat's "normal" text
Normal: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way you suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand. If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light.

I do think this idea would be really amusing and work really well if you halved the hands and picked up natural attacks with it instead, and feral combat training to apply it to pummling style.

Also for how it looks: http://youtu.be/E8yONerQW5c?t=1h5m15s


wraithstrike wrote:
It seems to work by RAW, but don't expect for any GM to allow it. If he does don't be surprised if he uses it against the party. If you are the GM well I still advise against it.

Actually it's usually my job to find the fringe stuff in order to shy our group away. I offer lots of times to build enemy's for my DMs. My group also hates when I get dominated. They also love when I DM, I let them go wild.


Indeed, I'm sorry two weapon fighting allows for one extra attack, and one only. Limbs do not inherently just allow for more attacks.


Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Indeed, I'm sorry two weapon fighting allows for one extra attack, and one only. Limbs do not inherently just allow for more attacks.

The rule in question is like dark matter; we can't see it, but all the evidence points to it being there. F##%ing "unwritten rules," man.


Zwordsman wrote:
stuff

Ah, I misunderstood you then. I thought you were saying he needed to have two weapon fighting to make use of multiple natural attacks, like you were saying nat attacks were tied to BAB like manufactured weapons.


Calth wrote:

Yes it does, look at the Kasatha race, the PCs don't gain any extra attacks, but Bestiary creatures do.

Onyxlion wrote:
Yeah I've been searching the bestiary and all entries that use multiweapon fighting have no other abilities that "grant" attacks besides the "flavor" of being mulitarmed. I do understand what you're saying I just see no actual rules for it.
That's not how the rules systems work, I don't need a rule saying you don't get the attacks, you need a rule saying you do, and multi-weapon fighting does not.

It says "(It has one primary hand, and all the others are off hands.) "

That implies more than one off hands. By RAW and RAI creatures can have more than one off-hand that can be used.

Are you saying that:

A. by RAW a multi weaponed creature can't work, but it does by RAI

B. Paizo printed a feat for no reason aka the feat also does not work by RAI either as I am describing it

C. The feat does something different. In that case explain what it does.


chaoseffect wrote:
Zwordsman wrote:
stuff
Ah, I misunderstood you then. I thought you were saying he needed to have two weapon fighting to make use of multiple natural attacks, like you were saying nat attacks were tied to BAB like manufactured weapons.

Nah no worries. Once I clicked on this again I was really confused where I was in the conversation and had to try to figure out what happened haha. where that showed up it totally looked like I lost my mind.

I do feel like this would work great with normal unarmed strike then a ton of nat attacks all at the same negative.

as a GM i'd probably be ok with it (when you work out evolution costs it ends up being similar to a FOB but different negatives via natural attacks.
and i would HOUND THE HELL out of that character. There is no way hiding that many extra arms, and people will look. people might be disgusted, people might attack you assuming your a monster.
It would be really amusing for all I think.

random drunk thug
"Ey. Ye look like a durned statue"
*various pushing and such*
pummeling strike DBZ dragon punch style


wraithstrike wrote:
Calth wrote:

Yes it does, look at the Kasatha race, the PCs don't gain any extra attacks, but Bestiary creatures do.

Onyxlion wrote:
Yeah I've been searching the bestiary and all entries that use multiweapon fighting have no other abilities that "grant" attacks besides the "flavor" of being mulitarmed. I do understand what you're saying I just see no actual rules for it.
That's not how the rules systems work, I don't need a rule saying you don't get the attacks, you need a rule saying you do, and multi-weapon fighting does not.

It says "(It has one primary hand, and all the others are off hands.) "

That implies more than one off hands. By RAW and RAI creatures can have more than one off-hand that can be used.

Are you saying that:

A. by RAW a multi weaponed creature can't work, but it does by RAI

B. Paizo printed a feat for no reason aka the feat also does not work by RAI either as I am describing it

C. The feat does something different. In that case explain what it does.

Multi-fighting weapon itself does nothing that two-weapon fighting does not, because by RAW, and I feel RAI for PCs, the amount of limbs a creature has does not change the amount of manufactured weapon attacks it may make.


The Archive wrote:
Also, the Limbs evolution doesn't give free slam attacks. Just limbs.

Noted.

I just noticed it says limbs(arms) and limbs(legs) as two different things. So you can buy arms. We will get back to this later.. Thanks for the notification.


Zwordsman wrote:

The jist is that they not be natural attacks, all I was looking for was a lot of offhand attacks to us improved unarmed strike with. Natural attacks my hit the eidolons limit though it's iffy when you apply the primal transformation to yourself.


Calth wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Calth wrote:

Yes it does, look at the Kasatha race, the PCs don't gain any extra attacks, but Bestiary creatures do.

Onyxlion wrote:
Yeah I've been searching the bestiary and all entries that use multiweapon fighting have no other abilities that "grant" attacks besides the "flavor" of being mulitarmed. I do understand what you're saying I just see no actual rules for it.
That's not how the rules systems work, I don't need a rule saying you don't get the attacks, you need a rule saying you do, and multi-weapon fighting does not.

It says "(It has one primary hand, and all the others are off hands.) "

That implies more than one off hands. By RAW and RAI creatures can have more than one off-hand that can be used.

Are you saying that:

A. by RAW a multi weaponed creature can't work, but it does by RAI

B. Paizo printed a feat for no reason aka the feat also does not work by RAI either as I am describing it

C. The feat does something different. In that case explain what it does.

Multi-fighting weapon itself does nothing that two-weapon fighting does not, because by RAW, and I feel RAI for PCs, the amount of limbs a creature has does not change the amount of manufactured weapon attacks it may make.

So what is the purpose of it replacing TWF?


Zwordsman wrote:

I do feel like this would work great with normal unarmed strike then a ton of nat attacks all at the same negative.

as a GM i'd probably be ok with it (when you work out evolution costs it ends up being similar to a FOB but different negatives via natural attacks.
and i would HOUND THE HELL out of that character. There is no way hiding that many extra arms, and people will look. people might be disgusted, people might attack you assuming your a monster.
It would be really amusing for all I think.

random drunk thug
"Ey. Ye look like a durned statue"
*various pushing and such*
pummeling strike DBZ dragon punch style

It's not on all the time you can at max use it for 18 a day with 1 minute increments.

Also I'm going to post an actual build so others can better understand the interaction between what I wanted to do.


wraithstrike wrote:
Calth wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Calth wrote:

Yes it does, look at the Kasatha race, the PCs don't gain any extra attacks, but Bestiary creatures do.

Onyxlion wrote:
Yeah I've been searching the bestiary and all entries that use multiweapon fighting have no other abilities that "grant" attacks besides the "flavor" of being mulitarmed. I do understand what you're saying I just see no actual rules for it.
That's not how the rules systems work, I don't need a rule saying you don't get the attacks, you need a rule saying you do, and multi-weapon fighting does not.

It says "(It has one primary hand, and all the others are off hands.) "

That implies more than one off hands. By RAW and RAI creatures can have more than one off-hand that can be used.

Are you saying that:

A. by RAW a multi weaponed creature can't work, but it does by RAI

B. Paizo printed a feat for no reason aka the feat also does not work by RAI either as I am describing it

C. The feat does something different. In that case explain what it does.

Multi-fighting weapon itself does nothing that two-weapon fighting does not, because by RAW, and I feel RAI for PCs, the amount of limbs a creature has does not change the amount of manufactured weapon attacks it may make.
So what is the purpose of it replacing TWF?

Presumably for the specific use with creatures that have some sort of racial ability that says they can use the two weapon fighting rules to get extra off hands for having more literal hands.


chaoseffect wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


So what is the purpose of it replacing TWF?
Presumably for the specific use with creatures that have some sort of racial ability that says they can use the two weapon fighting rules to get extra off hands for having more literal hands.

Its intended for bestiary creatures whos extra limbs should have had a notation or ability stating they granted extra attacks. Otherwise, would a one-armed character be prevented from using dwarven helmet or armor spikes to attack? That's the exact same logic saying an additional arm grants attack, losing an arm would remove the attack.


Okay guys what I wanted to do was combine

Brawler's Flurry (Ex)

Starting at 2nd level, a brawler can make a brawler's flurry as a full-attack action. When doing so, a brawler has the Two-Weapon Fighting feat when attacking with any combination of unarmed strikes, weapons from the close fighter weapon group, or weapons with the "monk" special feature. She does not need to use two different weapons to use this ability.

A brawler applies her full Strength modifier to her damage rolls for all attacks made with brawler's flurry, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand weapon or a weapon wielded in both hands. A brawler can substitute disarm, sunder, and trip combat maneuvers for unarmed attacks as part of brawler's flurry. A brawler with natural weapons can't use such weapons as part of brawler's flurry, nor can she make natural weapon attacks in addition to her brawler's flurry attacks.
---------------------------------------------------------------
With
Primal Transformation (Su)

At first level, a primal companion hunter can awaken a primal creature from within his animal companion as a swift action. The animal companion gains a pool of evolution points that can be used to temporarily give the companion evolutions as if it were an eidolon. A primal companion hunter uses her hunter level to determine the number of evolution points gained, limitations on how often an evolution can be selected, and so on. Whenever she gains a level, she must decide how these points are spent, and they are set until she gains another level.

Activating these evolutions on the animal companion is a swift action. A primal companion hunter can use this ability for 1 minute per day per hunter level. This duration need not to be consecutive, but it must be spent in 1-minute increments. An animal companion transformed in this way cannot exceed the maximum number of attacks available to the eidolon of a summoner whose class level equals that of the hunter. While transformed in this way, the animal companion's type changes to magical beast, though the primal companion hunter still treats it as an animal for the purpose of the Handle Animal skill.

If a primal companion hunter's animal companion is dead, she can apply these evolutions to herself instead of to her animal companion. Uses of this ability count toward the hunter's maximum daily duration of evolution use.
----------------------------------------------------------------
To gain the limbs evolution let's say 11 times in order to brawler punch things with 24 arms. But some say more arms don't allow for more brawler punches (improved unarmed strikes)


chaoseffect wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Calth wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Calth wrote:

Yes it does, look at the Kasatha race, the PCs don't gain any extra attacks, but Bestiary creatures do.

Onyxlion wrote:
Yeah I've been searching the bestiary and all entries that use multiweapon fighting have no other abilities that "grant" attacks besides the "flavor" of being mulitarmed. I do understand what you're saying I just see no actual rules for it.
That's not how the rules systems work, I don't need a rule saying you don't get the attacks, you need a rule saying you do, and multi-weapon fighting does not.

It says "(It has one primary hand, and all the others are off hands.) "

That implies more than one off hands. By RAW and RAI creatures can have more than one off-hand that can be used.

Are you saying that:

A. by RAW a multi weaponed creature can't work, but it does by RAI

B. Paizo printed a feat for no reason aka the feat also does not work by RAI either as I am describing it

C. The feat does something different. In that case explain what it does.

Multi-fighting weapon itself does nothing that two-weapon fighting does not, because by RAW, and I feel RAI for PCs, the amount of limbs a creature has does not change the amount of manufactured weapon attacks it may make.
So what is the purpose of it replacing TWF?
Presumably for the specific use with creatures that have some sort of racial ability that says they can use the two weapon fighting rules to get extra off hands for having more literal hands.

I am asking him specifically to be sure he thinks that if the PDT team would jump in this discussion right now they would say "MWF=TWF" since they do the exact same thing.

IF that is not what he is saying I would like to know what the thinks they would say aka how the feat is intended to work.

Either answer is fine with me. I just want to be clear because I am still confused by what he think the RAI is.


Onyxlion wrote:

The core rulebook says you only gain 1 extra attack and only for a 2nd weapon (and it specifically calls out an unarmed strike as a light weapon in the same paragraph).

You simply don't, per RAW, gain more attacks for more arms anywhere in the rule book with the exception of natural attacks.


The FAQ like the rules are often written from a PC-centric point of view and the PDT team has a habit(for good or bad) of only answering the question you specifically answered. That is the problem here. That is why you have to take their ruling and apply everything in context.

With that said the eidolon might get another rules exception to prevent this from taking place. The problem with the system being so complicated is that with so much interaction even things that are legal may not be good for the table.


wraithstrike wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Calth wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Calth wrote:

Yes it does, look at the Kasatha race, the PCs don't gain any extra attacks, but Bestiary creatures do.

Onyxlion wrote:
Yeah I've been searching the bestiary and all entries that use multiweapon fighting have no other abilities that "grant" attacks besides the "flavor" of being mulitarmed. I do understand what you're saying I just see no actual rules for it.
That's not how the rules systems work, I don't need a rule saying you don't get the attacks, you need a rule saying you do, and multi-weapon fighting does not.

It says "(It has one primary hand, and all the others are off hands.) "

That implies more than one off hands. By RAW and RAI creatures can have more than one off-hand that can be used.

Are you saying that:

A. by RAW a multi weaponed creature can't work, but it does by RAI

B. Paizo printed a feat for no reason aka the feat also does not work by RAI either as I am describing it

C. The feat does something different. In that case explain what it does.

Multi-fighting weapon itself does nothing that two-weapon fighting does not, because by RAW, and I feel RAI for PCs, the amount of limbs a creature has does not change the amount of manufactured weapon attacks it may make.
So what is the purpose of it replacing TWF?
Presumably for the specific use with creatures that have some sort of racial ability that says they can use the two weapon fighting rules to get extra off hands for having more literal hands.

I am asking him specifically to be sure he thinks that if the PDT team would jump in this discussion right now they would say "MWF=TWF" since they do the exact same thing.

IF that is not what he is saying I would like to know what the thinks they would say aka how the feat is intended to work.

Either answer is fine with me. I just want to be clear because I am still confused by what he think the RAI is.

To repeat what I said above, the issue is not multi-weapon fighting, it is that there is no rule granting attacks for additional limbs. Part of the confusion is coming from the difference between Two-Weapon fighting the combat rule, which is what I have been referring too for attacks, and Two-weapon fighting, which reduces attack penalties. Mechanically, Two-weapon fighting and Multi-weapon fighting are equivalent feats, it says so in multi-weapon fightings text. There, however, is no Multi-weapon fighting combat rule.


Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Onyxlion wrote:

The core rulebook says you only gain 1 extra attack and only for a 2nd weapon (and it specifically calls out an unarmed strike as a light weapon in the same paragraph).

You simply don't, per RAW, gain more attacks for more arms anywhere in the rule book with the exception of natural attacks.

Nah man I understand your stance and where you're coming from, I'm more concerned with rules I can't see or reference in yhe game. Kind of kills the point of a rules based game. Whether my idea works or not.

Edit: Clarity


Onyxlion wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Onyxlion wrote:

The core rulebook says you only gain 1 extra attack and only for a 2nd weapon (and it specifically calls out an unarmed strike as a light weapon in the same paragraph).

You simply don't, per RAW, gain more attacks for more arms anywhere in the rule book with the exception of natural attacks.

Nah man I understand your stance and where you're coming from, I'm more concerned with rules I can't see or reference in out game. Kind of kills the point of a rules based game. Where my idea works or not.

Pretty much. We can clearly see creatures using the implied rules for multiweapon fighting, yet the rules themselves are not there. We can only assume their contents by indirect observation.


chaoseffect wrote:
Onyxlion wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Onyxlion wrote:

The core rulebook says you only gain 1 extra attack and only for a 2nd weapon (and it specifically calls out an unarmed strike as a light weapon in the same paragraph).

You simply don't, per RAW, gain more attacks for more arms anywhere in the rule book with the exception of natural attacks.

Nah man I understand your stance and where you're coming from, I'm more concerned with rules I can't see or reference in out game. Kind of kills the point of a rules based game. Where my idea works or not.
Pretty much. We can clearly see creatures using the implied rules for multiweapon fighting, yet the rules themselves are not there. We can only assume their contents by indirect observation.

To be perfectly fair, a lot of paizo developers have admitted to not knowing the rules through and through. Honestly, sometimes I feel like the people on the forums spend more time observing the game than the actual creators do. We've had several feats and abilities by now that we've discovered did absolutely nothing, or even made the person worse.


Calth I am asking you what you think the PDT would say. I understand your RAW position.


Why would extra arms be the required thing for extra attacks? My monk has two feet, two fists, two elbows, two knees, and a head. That should allow me four or five attacks a round from level 1, right?


To be honest I really don't think it breaks much if anything. Take some numbers let's say my brawler punch is [w]+10 that would make a pummeling strike only be 26[w]+260 and that's if they all hit. I've seen way worse numbers and have done better myself using only 2 hands.


chaoseffect wrote:
Onyxlion wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Onyxlion wrote:

The core rulebook says you only gain 1 extra attack and only for a 2nd weapon (and it specifically calls out an unarmed strike as a light weapon in the same paragraph).

You simply don't, per RAW, gain more attacks for more arms anywhere in the rule book with the exception of natural attacks.

Nah man I understand your stance and where you're coming from, I'm more concerned with rules I can't see or reference in out game. Kind of kills the point of a rules based game. Where my idea works or not.
Pretty much. We can clearly see creatures using the implied rules for multiweapon fighting, yet the rules themselves are not there. We can only assume their contents by indirect observation.

The game has quiet a few unwritten rules. That is how some creatures with innate sorcerer levels can cast spells without having "hands".

That is why when I go to the rules forum I look at RAI(what the devs intended) because I want to know how something is supposed to work in a game. The letter of the law(rules) is not often to hard to figure out.


wraithstrike wrote:
Calth I am asking you what you think the PDT would say. I understand your RAW position.

I think the PDT would say that the Multiweapon fighting feat was not intended to grant new attacks, just like two-weapon fighting feat does not.


Calth wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Calth I am asking you what you think the PDT would say. I understand your RAW position.
I think the PDT would say that the Multiweapon fighting feat was not intended to grant new attacks, just like two-weapon fighting feat does not.

Fair enough. I would assume you think they would say the MWF really does nothing and it is intended to just be TWF by another name?


Correct. The feat explicitly says in its description it is two-weapon fighting by another name. Now on the other hand, I do believe the PDT intended for bestiary mobs to be able to take advantage of multiple limbs, which by RAW they cannot, but I also believe they do not intend for PCs to gain additional attacks from additional limbs, which complicates the issue.


Matthew Downie wrote:
Why would extra arms be the required thing for extra attacks? My monk has two feet, two fists, two elbows, two knees, and a head. That should allow me four or five attacks a round from level 1, right?

To gain extra offhands. They are right that a normal PC has 1 main and 1 offhand, so you could do as you say and use 2 of any of those. Also my original assumption was that a limb once used couldn't be reused (the natural attack exceptions thing just in case) and was using the extra limbs to gain more offhand attacks.

Also if you did do that (it being legal) your to hit would be horrid.

51 to 100 of 189 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Does this 26 punches pummeling style work? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.