Does this 26 punches pummeling style work?


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 189 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

wraithstrike wrote:
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.

Do you have examples in mind I could look at, I'm curious.


Calth wrote:
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.

I don't think they mind PC's with extra limbs, but I do think 26 attacks would be beyond what they expected. They do have the eidolon, and that new race with 4 arms, even allowing it to shoot two bows at the same time with a certain ranger archetype. There will be no double archery in my games though.

How many limbs would they think is ok? I have no idea, but I am 99% sure that 26 is above that number.

PS: If they intended for creatures(bestiary) to take advantage of multiple limbs I think they would state was the intend, and then say "we will errata it later". That is basically what I was getting it which is the RAI.


Onyxlion wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
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.

Do you have examples in mind I could look at, I'm curious.

Nagas and blink dogs have innate sorcerer levels, but neither has hands nor any rules exceptions to bypass needing hands.

Unofficially their body movements substitute the somatic component that the hands would make for a humanoid shaped creature.

Another example was that haste was intended to give all creatures one extra attack(natural, melee, and unarmed strikes) but the RAW(pre-errata) said "held weapons".


wraithstrike wrote:
Calth wrote:
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.

I don't think they mind PC's with extra limbs, but I do think 26 attacks would be beyond what they expected. They do have the eidolon, and that new race with 4 arms, even allowing it to shoot two bows at the same time with a certain ranger archetype. There will be no double archery in my games though.

How many limbs would they think is ok? I have no idea, but I am 99% sure that 26 is above that number.

PS: If they intended for creatures(bestiary) to take advantage of multiple limbs I think they would state was the intend, and then say "we will errata it later". That is basically what I was getting it which is the RAI.

Well I do try to go as far overboard while running thought experiments. Just think, I was assuming a human (2 armed only) before, about races with more limbs to begin with. I mean I could do that with the NPC's that already have many arms and have them go around falcon punching PC's, not that I would.

Oh and thanks for the examples, though I never really understood why semantic components had to done with hands.


Onyxlion wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Calth wrote:
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.

I don't think they mind PC's with extra limbs, but I do think 26 attacks would be beyond what they expected. They do have the eidolon, and that new race with 4 arms, even allowing it to shoot two bows at the same time with a certain ranger archetype. There will be no double archery in my games though.

How many limbs would they think is ok? I have no idea, but I am 99% sure that 26 is above that number.

PS: If they intended for creatures(bestiary) to take advantage of multiple limbs I think they would state was the intend, and then say "we will errata it later". That is basically what I was getting it which is the RAI.

Well I do try to go as far overboard while running thought experiments. Just think, I was assuming a human (2 armed only) before, about races with more limbs to begin with. I mean I could do that with the NPC's that already have many arms and have them go around falcon punching PC's, not that I would.

Oh and thanks for the examples, though I never really understood why semantic components had to done with hands.

The PC's are humanoid and read by players who are humans. That is why it says "hands". It also represents the magical gestures in movies and fantasy novels.

When applying the rules to monsters you just have to remember many of them are written as if applying to humanoids(or humanoid shapes), and adjust accordingly.

edit: I actually like some of these thought experiments that come up. It lets me know what to watch out for.


Having more limbs does not grant extra Unarmed Strikes, because Unarmed Strikes are not dependent on limbs. An Unarmed Strike is a single weapon. All characters have multiple ways of delivering said unarmed strike (punch, kick, knee, elbow, headbutt, pelvic thrust, etc.). You do not, however, get to have an attack routine of Punch/Punch/Kick/Kick/Knee/Knee/Elbow/Elbow/Pelvis/Pelvis/Etc./Etc., because you do not have Weapon: Punch, Weapon: Kick, Weapon: Headbutt, and so on. You have Weapon: Unarmed Strike, which is a single weapon which may be used with any of your limbs, with the added benefit that it's sort of like a double weapon; You can use Two-Weapon Fighting with it (and even this is a generous interpretation, near as I can tell there's nothing in the rules explicitly allowing an Unarmed Strike to be used by itself with Two-Weapon Fighting, everybody just seems to have assumed this is the case over the years because of Flurry...however Flurry may only actually work because it SAYS you can use Unarmed Strikes with it).

I see no reason why having 26 arms would change this fact. You merely have more arms with which to deliver said attacks, not more attacks. You may punch while holding something in your other 25 limbs, after your legs, head, and dick have been chopped off, and that is the only benefit you receive.

Extra limbs give you additional off-hand attacks, yes, but only if you have the weapons for it. If you had 26 swords, you could attack 26 times.

You do not have 26 Unarmed Strikes, you only have 1, regardless of your number of limbs.

Take Ball of Arms Man back to the system he originated from.


Rynjin wrote:

Having more limbs does not grant extra Unarmed Strikes, because Unarmed Strikes are not dependent on limbs. An Unarmed Strike is a single weapon. All characters have multiple ways of delivering said unarmed strike (punch, kick, knee, elbow, headbutt, pelvic thrust, etc.). You do not, however, get to have an attack routine of Punch/Punch/Kick/Kick/Knee/Knee/Elbow/Elbow/Pelvis/Pelvis/Etc./Etc., because you do not have Weapon: Punch, Weapon: Kick, Weapon: Headbutt, and so on. You have Weapon: Unarmed Strike, which is a single weapon which may be used with any of your limbs, with the added benefit that it's sort of like a double weapon; You can use Two-Weapon Fighting with it (and even this is a generous interpretation, near as I can tell there's nothing in the rules explicitly allowing an Unarmed Strike to be used by itself with Two-Weapon Fighting, everybody just seems to have assumed this is the case over the years because of Flurry...however Flurry may only actually work because it SAYS you can use Unarmed Strikes with it).

I see no reason why having 26 arms would change this fact. You merely have more arms with which to deliver said attacks, not more attacks. You may punch while holding something in your other 25 limbs, after your legs, head, and dick have been chopped off, and that is the only benefit you receive.

Extra limbs give you additional off-hand attacks, yes, but only if you have the weapons for it. If you had 26 swords, you could attack 26 times.

You do not have 26 Unarmed Strikes, you only have 1, regardless of your number of limbs.

Take Ball of Arms Man back to the system he originated from.

Good thing I'm using brawler's flurry so I'll just pick up 24 pairs of close weapons and still falcon punch things. Man-at-arms is here to stay.

He originated in this game its the only one silly enough to pull it off, can't even think of another system it'd even be worth doing.


There ya go.

Well, actually, not sure. Brawler's Flurry is specifically TWFing, not Multiweapon Fighting. So doesn't work with Brawler's Flurry either.

Just go Fighter or summat and grab the actual Feats.

Onyxlion wrote:


He originated in this game its the only one silly enough to pull it off, can't even think of another system it'd even be worth doing.

Orly?


Rynjin wrote:

There ya go.

Well, actually, not sure. Brawler's Flurry is specifically TWFing, not Multiweapon Fighting. So doesn't work with Brawler's Flurry either.

Just go Fighter or summat and grab the actual Feats.

Onyxlion wrote:


He originated in this game its the only one silly enough to pull it off, can't even think of another system it'd even be worth doing.
Orly?

You'd get no benefit in M&M it has built in caps, also I can do way worse things than have lots of arms. Really though you could but the lots of arms would be a descriptor of the power though not very functional as a power itself. It would depend on what effect you wanted.

Any ways its just a thought experiment like trying to flurry with a flame blade or building an indestructible homunculus familiar-companion.


Rynjin wrote:

Having more limbs does not grant extra Unarmed Strikes, because Unarmed Strikes are not dependent on limbs. An Unarmed Strike is a single weapon. All characters have multiple ways of delivering said unarmed strike (punch, kick, knee, elbow, headbutt, pelvic thrust, etc.). You do not, however, get to have an attack routine of Punch/Punch/Kick/Kick/Knee/Knee/Elbow/Elbow/Pelvis/Pelvis/Etc./Etc., because you do not have Weapon: Punch, Weapon: Kick, Weapon: Headbutt, and so on. You have Weapon: Unarmed Strike, which is a single weapon which may be used with any of your limbs, with the added benefit that it's sort of like a double weapon; You can use Two-Weapon Fighting with it (and even this is a generous interpretation, near as I can tell there's nothing in the rules explicitly allowing an Unarmed Strike to be used by itself with Two-Weapon Fighting, everybody just seems to have assumed this is the case over the years because of Flurry...however Flurry may only actually work because it SAYS you can use Unarmed Strikes with it).

I see no reason why having 26 arms would change this fact. You merely have more arms with which to deliver said attacks, not more attacks. You may punch while holding something in your other 25 limbs, after your legs, head, and dick have been chopped off, and that is the only benefit you receive.

Extra limbs give you additional off-hand attacks, yes, but only if you have the weapons for it. If you had 26 swords, you could attack 26 times.

You do not have 26 Unarmed Strikes, you only have 1, regardless of your number of limbs.

Take Ball of Arms Man back to the system he originated from.

FAQ wrote:


Unarmed Strike: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make two unarmed strikes in one round?
Yes.

The issue with unarmed strikes is that they are treated as multiple weapons depending on the situation, but are always listed as one weapon. It really does need to be rewritten so it works better with the connection between RAI and RAW.

It should have been treated like natural attacks to an extent such that an elbow and a knee were not the same weapon for the purpose of enhancements also. It might have also allowed the monk to get cheaper weapons, but that is another topic for another day.


Okay the more I read through that the more I want to play M&M to play Ball-of-Arms man and actually be useful. So I concede my original statement while also bookmarking for later, he is going next to the gooper. What's the goopers power you say well he turns solids to liquid aka he goops them, mind you it doesn't really do anything in M&M terms the solid is just now liquid.


Onyxlion wrote:
Okay the more I read through that the more I want to play M&M to play Ball-of-Arms man and actually be useful. So I concede my original statement while also bookmarking for later, he is going next to the gooper. What's the goopers power you say well he turns solids to liquid aka he goops them, mind you it doesn't really do anything in M&M terms the solid is just now liquid.

off topic: How do you keep failing your will saves? Do you dump wisdom?

As a reminder unless my memory is bad, I think you said the GM turns your characters against the party.


I know I'm all over the place. My GM has stopped me from playing my characters while dominated because I'm too good at it, I can give advice but not too much. BTW characters that I play are not like BoA Man there they are practical and story driven. So no I don't usually dumb any stat.

At one time I did actively play characters like that but not anymore. Also I have horrid dice luck, like super awful.

Edit: He also loves charms, compulsions, and dominate effects.


Onyxlion wrote:

I know I'm all over the place. My GM has stopped me from playing my characters while dominated because I'm too good at it, I can give advice but not too much. BTW characters that I play are not like BoA Man there they are practical and story driven. So no I don't usually dumb any stat.

At one time I did actively play characters like that but not anymore. Also I have horrid dice luck, like super awful.

Edit: He also loves charms, compulsions, and dominate effects.

If your team mates cast protection from ___ on you then you get a reroll. :)


Onyxlion wrote:


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.

If you note the damage of the long swords, this creature is not two-handing either long sword.


Creatures that are naturally multi-armed get additional "off-hands." I do not believe the limbs evolution grants additional "off-hands."


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Onyxlion wrote:


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.

If you note the damage of the long swords, this creature is not two-handing either long sword.

Actually looking closer at it you're right but it seems to be taking massive negatives to it's attacks, I'm not sure I even understand that attack stat block now.


wraithstrike wrote:


If your team mates cast protection from ___ on you then you get a reroll. :)

Our last session of wrath we had me charmed, big dumb fighter dominated, slayer suggested. We ended up burning like 6 or 7 rerolls between the 3 of us, and the slayer never did snap out of it.


Onyxlion wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Onyxlion wrote:


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.

If you note the damage of the long swords, this creature is not two-handing either long sword.
Actually looking closer at it you're right but it seems to be taking massive negatives to it's attacks, I'm not sure I even understand that attack stat block now.

BAB +5, Str +5 = +10 attack -4 mwf w one-handed weapons, -1 large = +5 attack


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Onyxlion wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Onyxlion wrote:


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.

If you note the damage of the long swords, this creature is not two-handing either long sword.
Actually looking closer at it you're right but it seems to be taking massive negatives to it's attacks, I'm not sure I even understand that attack stat block now.

BAB +5, Str +5 = +10 attack -4 mwf w one-handed weapons, -1 large = +5 attack

Large, freaking large yup and it added in the 2 slams at -6 each.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Creatures that are naturally multi-armed get additional "off-hands." I do not believe the limbs evolution grants additional "off-hands."

The rules make no such distinction between permanent(natural) and semi-permanent limbs.

Your limbs become "off hands" by virtue of not being the primary hand. If it had to be called out then every creature with multiple arms would have to call out "off hands" in its entry.


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.

For Society play, it's in the Additional Resources:

Additional Resources wrote:


Bestiary ...
Feats: none of the feats are legal for play for PCs, animal companions, or familiars unless specifically granted by another legal source;


whew wrote:
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.

For Society play, it's in the Additional Resources doc:

Bestiary wrote:
Feats: none of the feats are legal for play for PCs, animal companions, or familiars unless specifically granted by another legal source;

That is PFS. I know about their house rules. I mean the normal game rules don't speak against it.

edit: You should have that as Pathfinder society says..., because it is not in the bestiary. As a PFS member I have that document you are referring to.


For future reference people in this forum are not referring to PFS rules. It is hard to display proper tone of voice online so I will say I am not agitated. I am just telling you so that you won't bring a PFS rule to a "normal" rule debate, and wonder why people are dismissing it.


I think it also bears noting that monsters are often allowed to do things that PCs can't do. So while it may not be a satisfactory answer for everyone who asks, "But why can't I do X when there's this monster that is clearly doing X?", it is precisely what is intended.


wraithstrike wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Creatures that are naturally multi-armed get additional "off-hands." I do not believe the limbs evolution grants additional "off-hands."

The rules make no such distinction between permanent(natural) and semi-permanent limbs.

Your limbs become "off hands" by virtue of not being the primary hand. If it had to be called out then every creature with multiple arms would have to call out "off hands" in its entry.

I would say look at the difference between a naturally multi-armed creature vs an alchemist with vestigial arms if you don't believe the rules make a distinction between the two. The only question is how the limbs evolution is intended to function. I do not believe the intent was for them to provide extra "off-hands."


This is why the rules should be different for monsters and players. Or at least, different enough so that things meant for monsters don't end up in players' hands. That way if monsters want to break the rules there is no need to justify it in the same framework as players.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:


I would say look at the difference between a naturally multi-armed creature vs an alchemist with vestigial arms if you don't believe the rules make a distinction between the two. The only question is how the limbs evolution is intended to function. I do not believe the intent was for them to provide extra "off-hands."

Vestigial specifically say that you don't though. Also are you saying that monster I created from my mind and can change at each level is somehow not natively multi armed? Or that the limbs evo doesn't grant attacks because that bipedal base is in more trouble considering it starts with a pair of limbs?


Onyxlion wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:


I would say look at the difference between a naturally multi-armed creature vs an alchemist with vestigial arms if you don't believe the rules make a distinction between the two. The only question is how the limbs evolution is intended to function. I do not believe the intent was for them to provide extra "off-hands."
Vestigial specifically say that you don't though. Also are you saying that monster I created from my mind and can change at each level is somehow not natively multi armed? Or that the limbs evo doesn't grant attacks because that bipedal base is in more trouble considering it starts with a pair of limbs?

I don't believe the eidolon is meant to get extra off-hands because that would quickly break the cap for maximum number of attacks. However I don't have my books to review at the moment so I can't say with absolute certainty. If the eidolon does gain additional off-hands then anyone taking the limb evolution would also gain the extra off-hands.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Eidolons have a cap on their natural attacks not weapon attacks. See that's the big debate here no where is it stated that extra arms grant you the ability to use that arm as an offhand only that every creature that has more than 2 can do it.

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.


Onyxlion wrote:

Eidolons have a cap on their natural attacks not weapon attacks. See that's the big debate here no where is it stated that extra arms grant you the ability to use that arm as an offhand only that every creature that has more than 2 can do it.

I'm aware the cap only applies to natural attacks, that was actually my point. If the limbs evo provides additional off-hands, you would easily exceed the cap making it irrelevant.

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.

Again I believe it's not intended for them to gain additional off hands but I agree that it is not explicit.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:

Having more limbs does not grant extra Unarmed Strikes, because Unarmed Strikes are not dependent on limbs. An Unarmed Strike is a single weapon. All characters have multiple ways of delivering said unarmed strike (punch, kick, knee, elbow, headbutt, pelvic thrust, etc.). You do not, however, get to have an attack routine of Punch/Punch/Kick/Kick/Knee/Knee/Elbow/Elbow/Pelvis/Pelvis/Etc./Etc., because you do not have Weapon: Punch, Weapon: Kick, Weapon: Headbutt, and so on. You have Weapon: Unarmed Strike, which is a single weapon which may be used with any of your limbs, with the added benefit that it's sort of like a double weapon; You can use Two-Weapon Fighting with it (and even this is a generous interpretation, near as I can tell there's nothing in the rules explicitly allowing an Unarmed Strike to be used by itself with Two-Weapon Fighting, everybody just seems to have assumed this is the case over the years because of Flurry...however Flurry may only actually work because it SAYS you can use Unarmed Strikes with it).

I see no reason why having 26 arms would change this fact. You merely have more arms with which to deliver said attacks, not more attacks. You may punch while holding something in your other 25 limbs, after your legs, head, and dick have been chopped off, and that is the only benefit you receive.

Extra limbs give you additional off-hand attacks, yes, but only if you have the weapons for it. If you had 26 swords, you could attack 26 times.

You do not have 26 Unarmed Strikes, you only have 1, regardless of your number of limbs.

Take Ball of Arms Man back to the system he originated from.

This.

Your available unarmed strikes are completely independent of limbs.

You could have no arms, legs, or head, and still two-weapon fight with unarmed strikes, or have 26 legs, and arms, and still get only the same amount.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

Having more limbs does not grant extra Unarmed Strikes, because Unarmed Strikes are not dependent on limbs. An Unarmed Strike is a single weapon. All characters have multiple ways of delivering said unarmed strike (punch, kick, knee, elbow, headbutt, pelvic thrust, etc.). You do not, however, get to have an attack routine of Punch/Punch/Kick/Kick/Knee/Knee/Elbow/Elbow/Pelvis/Pelvis/Etc./Etc., because you do not have Weapon: Punch, Weapon: Kick, Weapon: Headbutt, and so on. You have Weapon: Unarmed Strike, which is a single weapon which may be used with any of your limbs, with the added benefit that it's sort of like a double weapon; You can use Two-Weapon Fighting with it (and even this is a generous interpretation, near as I can tell there's nothing in the rules explicitly allowing an Unarmed Strike to be used by itself with Two-Weapon Fighting, everybody just seems to have assumed this is the case over the years because of Flurry...however Flurry may only actually work because it SAYS you can use Unarmed Strikes with it).

I see no reason why having 26 arms would change this fact. You merely have more arms with which to deliver said attacks, not more attacks. You may punch while holding something in your other 25 limbs, after your legs, head, and dick have been chopped off, and that is the only benefit you receive.

Extra limbs give you additional off-hand attacks, yes, but only if you have the weapons for it. If you had 26 swords, you could attack 26 times.

You do not have 26 Unarmed Strikes, you only have 1, regardless of your number of limbs.

Take Ball of Arms Man back to the system he originated from.

This.

Your available unarmed strikes are completely independent of limbs.

You could have no arms, legs, or head, and still two-weapon fight with unarmed strikes, or have 26 legs, and arms, and still get only the same amount.

There is a FAQ that explicitly allows TWF with an unarmed strike. I would assume that same logic applies to a creature using multi-weapon fighting.

Dark Archive

Well the DEVS have already spoken up on this issue years ago and set down they why's and hows of whether extra limbs actually give you extra attacks.
SKR answering this question 2 years ago

Quote:

The core rules assume that you're a humanoid creature and you only have two "limbs" to attack with each round if you're using the "fighting with two weapons" option. It doesn't matter if you're making a headbutt and a punch, or a kick and a punch, or 2 kicks, or 2 punches, you're just making two attacks per round. At no time would you ever be able to justify a BAB +0 creature with no natural weapons making 2 punches AND 2 kicks per round: because the rules are assuming you are using your left hand and right hand, but hand-waves the idea that one of those "hands" could be some other body part such as an elbow, kick, or headbutt. The rules don't care, in the same way that they don't care if you say you're making a high swing or a low swing: it is irrelevant to the game mechanics, which say "make an attack roll to see if you hit." The game says, "pick a hand, even if it's not really a hand, make an attack, then pick another hand, even if it's not really a hand, and make a second attack."

The intent of that was to allow you wield a 1H weapon and make a secondary claw attack with your other hand, or to let you wield a 1H weapon and make a secondary bite attack with your mouth, or to let you wield a 2H weapon and make a secondary bite attack with your mouth.

The intent was to prevent you from making a full attack sequence with your natural attacks and a bunch of unarmed strikes by specifically defining your undefined unarmed strikes as conveniently different limbs than your natural attacks. Which is exactly what you're trying to do.

I bolded the important sentence, unarmed attacks are limited to your BaB number of attacks not your available number of limbs.

The iterative rules are an abstraction of combat, whether you have 2 or 2000 limbs you only get to make a number of actual attacks a round equal to whatever your BaB grants you UNLESS there's something that specifically says you can make more.
TWF says if you wield an additional weapon in your off-hand you can make one extra attack that round wielding that weapon. Now with the DEV clarification above the rules function as if you have a single off-hand to attack with. You may have a thousand arms but you still only have a single off-hand attack each round.
The only way to get another of those 1000 arms into the fight is to take the improved two weapon fighting feat to get an additional off-hand attack each round.

As for existing creatures out there with more than 2 arms wielding weapons making those attacks is very, very simple. THEY are not designed under the core assumption that they are humanoids with 2 arms. They don't follow this design philosophy so they get to break this rule.

Your mistake is trying to look at monsters and PC's as being the same thing following the same rules. They don't, they never have and that's a good thing. Trying to shoe horn critters and players into the same limitations limits the opponents too much and/or overpowers the players too much. Keep them separated and the game works better.


Mathwei ap Niall wrote:

Well the DEVS have already spoken up on this issue years ago and set down they why's and hows of whether extra limbs actually give you extra attacks.

SKR answering this question 2 years ago

Quote:

The core rules assume that you're a humanoid creature and you only have two "limbs" to attack with each round if you're using the "fighting with two weapons" option. It doesn't matter if you're making a headbutt and a punch, or a kick and a punch, or 2 kicks, or 2 punches, you're just making two attacks per round. At no time would you ever be able to justify a BAB +0 creature with no natural weapons making 2 punches AND 2 kicks per round: because the rules are assuming you are using your left hand and right hand, but hand-waves the idea that one of those "hands" could be some other body part such as an elbow, kick, or headbutt. The rules don't care, in the same way that they don't care if you say you're making a high swing or a low swing: it is irrelevant to the game mechanics, which say "make an attack roll to see if you hit." The game says, "pick a hand, even if it's not really a hand, make an attack, then pick another hand, even if it's not really a hand, and make a second attack."

The intent of that was to allow you wield a 1H weapon and make a secondary claw attack with your other hand, or to let you wield a 1H weapon and make a secondary bite attack with your mouth, or to let you wield a 2H weapon and make a secondary bite attack with your mouth.

The intent was to prevent you from making a full attack sequence with your natural attacks and a bunch of unarmed strikes by specifically defining your undefined unarmed strikes as conveniently different limbs than your natural attacks. Which is exactly what you're trying to do.

I bolded the important sentence, unarmed attacks are limited to your BaB number of attacks not your available number of limbs.

The iterative rules are an abstraction of combat,...

Yet they do work the same and the rules are the same, this isn't 4e this is pathfinder. Mulitarmed creatures don't have an explicit rule, even the 4 armed PC race has multiple offhands with no rules except having more arms. I understand what y'all are saying but your view is no more supported than mine, saying but you can't see the rule and NPCs are different doesn't cut it. This game is an explicit rules based game, unquantified rules have no place here.


You say that, but you don't have a rule granting the attacks you want but keep claiming you get them.


Onyxlion wrote:
Yet they do work the same and the rules are the same, this isn't 4e this is pathfinder. Mulitarmed creatures don't have an explicit rule, even the 4 armed PC race has multiple offhands with no rules except having more arms. I understand what y'all are saying but your view is no more supported than mine, saying but you can't see the rule and NPCs are different doesn't cut it. This game is an explicit rules based game, unquantified rules have no place here.

We've already cited the rule straight out of the core rule book multiple times. You get 1 extra attack for a 2nd weapon. Not a 3rd weapon. Not a 4th weapon. Just a 2nd one.

There are no other abilities that grant additional manufactured attacks, with the exception of the two weapon fighting rules straight from the core rule book. And those grant no benefits after your 2nd weapon.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mathwei ap Niall wrote:

Well the DEVS have already spoken up on this issue years ago and set down they why's and hows of whether extra limbs actually give you extra attacks.

SKR answering this question 2 years ago

Actually he still is assuming that you are a normal humanoid with 2 attacking limbs but not one with 3+. He even says the default is mainhand + 1 offhand, alluding to being able to more than one off hand.

What it comes down to is multiarmed characters don't work as written if you take the rule of only mainhand + 1 offhand because none have been issued errata.

Dark Archive

Onyxlion wrote:
Yet they do work the same and the rules are the same, this isn't 4e this is pathfinder. Mulitarmed creatures don't have an explicit rule, even the 4 armed PC race has multiple offhands with no rules except having more arms. I understand what y'all are saying but your view is no more supported than mine, saying but you can't see the rule and NPCs are different doesn't cut it. This game is an explicit rules based game, unquantified rules have no place here.

Where in ANY of the rules are you seeing anything saying they work the same. EVERYTHING quoted in this thread so far has shown that they DON'T work the same. Even the 4 armed races added in the race guide still fall under these same rules. 1 extra off hand attack, this is the intention and design of the game. The rules text, the dev quotes and the examples provided in all the published material all shows you that.


Calth wrote:
You say that, but you don't have a rule granting the attacks you want but keep claiming you get them.

Neither do any NPCs without using rule 0, that's what I'm claiming.


Yet this from the race builder say that you do.
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.


Mathwei ap Niall wrote:
Onyxlion wrote:
Yet they do work the same and the rules are the same, this isn't 4e this is pathfinder. Mulitarmed creatures don't have an explicit rule, even the 4 armed PC race has multiple offhands with no rules except having more arms. I understand what y'all are saying but your view is no more supported than mine, saying but you can't see the rule and NPCs are different doesn't cut it. This game is an explicit rules based game, unquantified rules have no place here.

Where in ANY of the rules are you seeing anything saying they work the same. EVERYTHING quoted in this thread so far has shown that they DON'T work the same. Even the 4 armed races added in the race guide still fall under these same rules. 1 extra off hand attack, this is the intention and design of the game. The rules text, the dev quotes and the examples provided in all the published material all shows you that.

Nope all there extra arms are offhands.

Dark Archive

Onyxlion wrote:
Mathwei ap Niall wrote:

Well the DEVS have already spoken up on this issue years ago and set down they why's and hows of whether extra limbs actually give you extra attacks.

SKR answering this question 2 years ago

Actually he still is assuming that you are a normal humanoid with 2 attacking limbs but not one with 3+. He even says the default is mainhand + 1 offhand, alluding to being able to more than one off hand.

What it comes down to is multiarmed characters don't work as written if you take the rule of only mainhand + 1 offhand because none have been issued errata.

He is assuming that because that's EXACTLY how they want the rules to be presented. PC's will ALWAYS be assumed to have 1 mainhand attack + 1 off hand attack, they will never change that. They clarified that with the Alchemist extra hand/tentacle discussion. PC attacks per round are based off BaB, X number of main hand attacks + 1-2 from TWF.

If you want to get an attack per limb then you have to use the natural attack rules and that has it's own set of limitations.


All I've seen is claims not rules in fact I feel the rules I've shown over and over say that more arms equals more offhand to multweapon fight and others have given conjecture and intent not actual rules.


Onyxlion wrote:
Mathwei ap Niall wrote:
Onyxlion wrote:
Yet they do work the same and the rules are the same, this isn't 4e this is pathfinder. Mulitarmed creatures don't have an explicit rule, even the 4 armed PC race has multiple offhands with no rules except having more arms. I understand what y'all are saying but your view is no more supported than mine, saying but you can't see the rule and NPCs are different doesn't cut it. This game is an explicit rules based game, unquantified rules have no place here.

Where in ANY of the rules are you seeing anything saying they work the same. EVERYTHING quoted in this thread so far has shown that they DON'T work the same. Even the 4 armed races added in the race guide still fall under these same rules. 1 extra off hand attack, this is the intention and design of the game. The rules text, the dev quotes and the examples provided in all the published material all shows you that.

Nope all there extra arms are offhands.

And yet, nowhere do you get an additional attack per offhand. Unless you can find an ability or rules statement that gives you additional attacks per offhand this really isn't a debate. Nothing exists to grant you such an ability, not found in the combat rules or any of your characters special abilities.

And btw just because you can wield multiple weapons, it does not ever state you get extra attacks from doing so. That trait still does not give extra attacks.

Dark Archive

Onyxlion wrote:

Yet this from the race builder say that you do.

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.

Yes Kasatha have multiple arms and can make an off-hand attack with any of them. What t doesn't say is that it can make an off hand attack with ALL of them.

They are a PC race so are expected to follow the same design I quoted above, 1 mainhand attack + 1 off hand attack (2 if they invest in improved TWF).

The advantage they get is they can wield multiple items at the same time and use them as they wish. 3 swords at once (cold iron, silver, adamantine) while using a shield/wand or any combination like that.

They still follow the TWF rules on how many attacks they get do Bab limit +1 (or 2 if they have Imp TWF).

Scarab Sages Modules Overlord

Note that I had nothing to do with any of the rulings or FAQs in question, and this is not an official answer:

It's not generally a good idea to use monsters to try to figure out how rules for PCs work, because monsters are, well, monsters. While an effort is made to have an abolish, or marilith, make sense they don't always have specific written-in abilities that cover things like their movement rate, number of attacks, or proficiencies. In many cases the "special ability" exists because that is how their stat block is listed. For example, outsiders are proficiency with whatever armor they are described as wearing, and all lighter types. There is no particular reason mariliths aren't proficient with armor, but since it's not listed in their stat block, they aren't.

By the same token, mariliths get 6 attacks with their 6 arms because that's how their stat block is listed. The "Stat Block" entry of the Bestiary tells you that the Melee line lists their melee attacks, and the Ranged line lists their ranged attacks. Once it is listed there, they have it.

If we design a monster with 3 or more arms and manufactured weapons that doesn't have Multiweapon Fighting. If we do, the fact we have included Multiweapon Fighting would let a GM know how to gain that benefit.

On a similar note, the hecatonchires has 100 hands, but does not get 100 attacks. because that's how it's monster listing is set up.

Monsters get as many attacks as are listed, and it works as listed. A marilith with 8 arms would not necessarily get 2 more attacks -- though she would if we wrote her that way.


question: why not just go arms+slam evolutions, then grab the feral combat feat? since your slams now count as unarmed strikes for the purpose of anything that calls them out, you can now use--and this is just an example here--pummeling style with 26attack/damage inputs while moving. (actually you can do that without feral combat training due to pummeling styles poor wording not actually limiting it to unarmed strikes--despite the fluff text, this is just assuming they'll errata it for sanity's sake)

also, i love that someone it trying to build Ball of Arms Man.

i've always wanted to play a synth summoner who was basically a miniature hecatoncheires


AndIMustMask wrote:

question: why not just go arms+slam evolution, then grab the feral combat feat? since your slams now count as unarmed strikes for the purpose of anythign that calls them out, you can now use pummeling style with 26attack/damage inputs. (actually you can do that without feral combat training due to pummeling styles poor wording not actually limiting it to unarmed strikes--despite the fluff text, this is just assuming they'll errata it for sanity's sake)

also, i love that someone it trying to build Ball of Arms Man.

i've always wanted to play a synth summoner who was basically a miniature hecatoncheires

It's questionable if the eidolon limit would cap it or not. If it didn't then it would be better to just get lots of tentacles and flurry with them. I was actually unaware of BAM until it was pointed out to me.


it's cool. ball of arms man is a part of all of us, whether we know of him or not.

101 to 150 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.