Does this 26 punches pummeling style work?


Rules Questions

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

Thomas Long 175 wrote:
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.

PRD wrote:

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.

You get an extra attack for every "off-hand" that you have (provided that it's not doing something else, like assisting the primary hand with a two-handed weapon).

The question is "Does the limbs evolution grant additional off-hands?"
It is my opinion that it does not.


hence why you tack on the slam (or claw) evo, so they have an actual attack associated with them.

also i just noticed that eidolons have a hard-cap on how many natural attacks they can make in one turn (regardless of how many they have, which monsters do not share this limitation), which is quite a limiting factor. though couldnt you full attack with unarmed strikes (using kicks, headbutts, pelvic thrusts, whatever), then following with your slam or claw natural routine as secondary natural attacks up to the natural attack limit.

in which case you'd need multiweapon fighting (though its granted free by the eidolon progression iirc) and TWF or flurry for the unarmed side to get more attacks in.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:


PRD wrote:

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

You get an extra attack for every "off-hand" that you have (provided that it's not doing something else, like assisting the primary hand with a two-handed weapon).

That is not at all what the feat says. The feat does only one thing, reduce penalties for attacking with multiple weapons. It does not grant any attacks. Neither does the two-weapon fighting feat. The Two-weapon fighting combat rule is what grants an extra attack, and there is no multiweapon fighting combat rule.


I know it might not seem like it but I do enjoy listening to the other perspectives and it tests my understanding of the game. I also realize how silly a 24 armed PC is but I feel we as players of the game should expect more from the rules of the game than rule 0. I'd rather have strong explicit rules than have stalemate debates even if I enjoy them.

Honestly not granting the offhands would actually fit the rules better than the other opinions I've heard. Whether the evo does or not I'm not sure.


Calth wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:


PRD wrote:

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

You get an extra attack for every "off-hand" that you have (provided that it's not doing something else, like assisting the primary hand with a two-handed weapon).

That is not at all what the feat says. The feat does only one thing, reduce penalties for attacking with multiple weapons. It does not grant any attacks. Neither does the two-weapon fighting feat. The Two-weapon fighting combat rule is what grants an extra attack, and there is no multiweapon fighting combat rule.

The Normal clause of the feat says "attacks made with all of it's off-hands," not any off hand.


i thought multiweapon fighting only reduced the secondary natural attack penalties for having boatloads of natural attacks (like dragons can have gore/bite/claw/claw/wing/wing/tail slap)


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:


PRD wrote:

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.

You get an extra attack for every "off-hand" that you have (provided that it's not doing something else, like assisting the primary hand with a two-handed weapon).

The question is "Does the limbs evolution grant additional off-hands?"
It is my opinion that it does not.

Check again, that doesn't actually grant attacks to all of your off hands. It just says it reduces the penalties for the attacks you make with all of them.


AndIMustMask wrote:
i thought multiweapon fighting only reduced the secondary natural attack penalties for having boatloads of natural attacks (like dragons can have gore/bite/claw/claw/wing/wing/tail slap)

That's multiattack.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Calth wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:


PRD wrote:

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

You get an extra attack for every "off-hand" that you have (provided that it's not doing something else, like assisting the primary hand with a two-handed weapon).

That is not at all what the feat says. The feat does only one thing, reduce penalties for attacking with multiple weapons. It does not grant any attacks. Neither does the two-weapon fighting feat. The Two-weapon fighting combat rule is what grants an extra attack, and there is no multiweapon fighting combat rule.
The Normal clause of the feat says "attacks made with all of it's off-hands," not any off hand.

Yes, so if you used your extra attacks from the twf line on additional attacks with different weapons you'd get the penalty reduction on all of your offhands. With just two weapon fighting, the reduction is for a singular offhand and so if you fought with your 3rd or 4th arms you'd still take full penalties with them. This allows you to alternate freely between the arms in the same turn and not take extra penalties for doing so.


Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:


PRD wrote:

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.

You get an extra attack for every "off-hand" that you have (provided that it's not doing something else, like assisting the primary hand with a two-handed weapon).

The question is "Does the limbs evolution grant additional off-hands?"
It is my opinion that it does not.

Check again, that doesn't actually grant attacks to all of your off hands. It just says it reduces the penalties for the attacks you make with all of them.

If you noticed the bolded part, that's missing in your quote, you will notice I was referring to the Normal clause of the feat.


ah.

then what is even the point of multiweapon fighting? i mean by the name i'd guess it's for folks with three or more arms that can hold/use weapons (alchemist doesn't count since it's arms are specifically cited to be unable to attack). like a strix or kaliklang or whatever its called with four longswords or somesuch.


Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Calth wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:


PRD wrote:

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

You get an extra attack for every "off-hand" that you have (provided that it's not doing something else, like assisting the primary hand with a two-handed weapon).

That is not at all what the feat says. The feat does only one thing, reduce penalties for attacking with multiple weapons. It does not grant any attacks. Neither does the two-weapon fighting feat. The Two-weapon fighting combat rule is what grants an extra attack, and there is no multiweapon fighting combat rule.
The Normal clause of the feat says "attacks made with all of it's off-hands," not any off hand.
Yes, so if you used your extra attacks from the twf line on additional attacks with different weapons you'd get the penalty reduction on all of your offhands. With just two weapon fighting, the reduction is for a singular offhand and so if you fought with your 3rd or 4th arms you'd still take full penalties with them. This allows you to alternate freely between the arms in the same turn and not take extra penalties for doing so.

That is wrong.


AndIMustMask wrote:

ah.

then what is even the point of multiweapon fighting? i mean by the name i'd guess it's for folks with three or more arms that can hold/use weapons (alchemist doesn't count since it's arms are specifically cited to be unable to attack). like a strix or kaliklang or whatever its called with four longswords or somesuch.

Its for bestiary creatures that don't follow the same construction rules as PCs.


AndIMustMask wrote:

ah.

then what is even the point of multiweapon fighting? i mean by the name i'd guess it's for folks with three or more arms that can hold/use weapons (alchemist doesn't count since it's arms are specifically cited to be unable to attack). like a strix or kaliklang or whatever its called with four longswords or somesuch.

That is correct.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
If you noticed the bolded part, that's missing in your quote, you will notice I was referring to the Normal clause of the feat.

I guess I'm just missing the point here. You can alternate between your offhand weapons without the multiweapon fighting feat if you have 4 arms.

It just allows you to attack with different weapons, not grants you additional attacks. This just reduces the penalty that you would incur for switching between weapons as Two weapon fighting only reduces the penalties for a single offhand.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Calth wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:


PRD wrote:

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

You get an extra attack for every "off-hand" that you have (provided that it's not doing something else, like assisting the primary hand with a two-handed weapon).

That is not at all what the feat says. The feat does only one thing, reduce penalties for attacking with multiple weapons. It does not grant any attacks. Neither does the two-weapon fighting feat. The Two-weapon fighting combat rule is what grants an extra attack, and there is no multiweapon fighting combat rule.
The Normal clause of the feat says "attacks made with all of it's off-hands," not any off hand.
Yes, so if you used your extra attacks from the twf line on additional attacks with different weapons you'd get the penalty reduction on all of your offhands. With just two weapon fighting, the reduction is for a singular offhand and so if you fought with your 3rd or 4th arms you'd still take full penalties with them. This allows you to alternate freely between the arms in the same turn and not take extra penalties for doing so.
That is wrong.

Read the feat. No its not. It specifies off hand as per singular in two weapon fighting.


alright, since folks seem to be going back and forth with 'nuh-uh' 'yes-huh', i'm just going to mark it as FAQ and take my leave. best of luck with the build OP.


Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Calth wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:


PRD wrote:

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

You get an extra attack for every "off-hand" that you have (provided that it's not doing something else, like assisting the primary hand with a two-handed weapon).

That is not at all what the feat says. The feat does only one thing, reduce penalties for attacking with multiple weapons. It does not grant any attacks. Neither does the two-weapon fighting feat. The Two-weapon fighting combat rule is what grants an extra attack, and there is no multiweapon fighting combat rule.
The Normal clause of the feat says "attacks made with all of it's off-hands," not any off hand.
Yes, so if you used your extra attacks from the twf line on additional attacks with different weapons you'd get the penalty reduction on all of your offhands. With just two weapon fighting, the reduction is for a singular offhand and so if you fought with your 3rd or 4th arms you'd still take full penalties with them. This allows you to alternate freely between the arms in the same turn and not take extra penalties for doing so.
That is wrong.
Read the feat. No its not. It specifies off hand as per singular in two weapon fighting.

I am not at all referencing what the feat does. I pointed out the normal clause. Those are the rules as unaffected by the feat. It says "attacks made with all off hands."


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
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."

But that is clearly called out and the eidolons limbs are just as much of an as your arm or mine. The vestigial arm also reads to me more like it is semi-crippled arm than a real(fully functional) one.


fretgod99 wrote:
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.

That is only because monsters get special abilities saying they can do X, which is explained in the rules. As an example most PC's don't get all around sight or trample. If there was a feat that had prereqs and gave them the equivalent of a monster ability such as snatch(which acts like grab) then they could take it. Most players just don't get to be huge. As another example nothing stops them from taking flyby attack, and the monster feat rules specifically say they can take the feats. They just normally don't qualify for them. That is different than "No PC allowed" or "Ask you GM".

PS: Yes, I know everything is up to the GM*, but unless that verbage is there like it is for a cleric trying to get domains with no deity it is assumed to be legal.

*I had to state that because I am sure someone was going to say it as if was an unknown fact.


stoolpigeon87 wrote:
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.

But how would you define a "monster", and the game has enough rules. Giving monsters their own rules does not help, and I do not want to see that nonsense(in my opinion) where a human/goblin(PC) is completely different than a human/goblin(monster).


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.

1. The rules are written from a PC-centric point of view, which is why he said "The core rules assume that you're a humanoid creature and you only have two "limbs".

2. With that said the eidolon is very much a monster. With what SKR said it seems all monsters are limited to unarmed strikes based on BAB, and not limbs, but there is still nothing to stop 26 sword attacks if you have the limbs. In this game all creatures follow the same rules. There are no monster rules and PC rules. There are just rules.

PS: Even if this was 100% rules legal I would say it would be a bad idea to allow it, but that is another discussion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mathwei ap Niall wrote:
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.

There is no assumption of "PC's" always having ... The default assumption is that the player will choose something with a humanoid shape(2 arms and 2 legs). That is different than the PC's having a special tag that disallows the PC character with 4 arms from doing the same thing that NPC X with 4 arms does despite being the exact same creature.


Anyway until multiweapon fighting is FAQ'd nobody will agree on this, so I am out until then.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:


I am not at all referencing what the feat does. I pointed out the normal clause. Those are the rules as unaffected by the feat. It says "attacks made...

Yes, because it has been stated by developers already in FAQ's that you can use multiple different weapons so long as it equals the normal number of attacks you could already make.

But normally you'd take penalties with all of your offhand attacks, regardless of which off hand arm you make it with.


So if I have 4 arms I could two weapon fight with great swords. The first would be at 1.5 str and the second at .5(maybe 1) str. If I had a 5th arm I could add in a shield for all that goodness. I could also use two more limbs to cast spell while holding a rod? That would have to be quickened to all in one round.

Dark Archive

TLDR: Ball of Arms Man works RAW. Saying otherwise is dishonest after you have been presented with a blatent rules qoutation that says you can get an extra attack with all your offhands when multiweapon fighting. But Ball of Arms Man is a silly idea, and will never actually be a problem in any game where the GM doesn't want to include it.

Long Version: I like how people say that the rules don't say something, and then when someone directly shows them where the rules do say that thing, they just stick their fingers in their ears and go "LALALALALALALA"

Pathfinder monsters and PCs operate under the same rules, the main difference is that designers get to make up special abilties for monsters that do whatever they want them too. It is a reasonable house rule to say that PCs can't take beastiary feats. But that isn't the baseline rules as written. Saying that PCs and monsters use different rules is blatently false. In pathfinder, they do use the same rules. Multiweapon fighting isn't in the Core rule book because there is no way to get more than 2 arms in the core rulebook. It is in the Bestiary because some monsters have more than 2 arms. It being in the Bestiary does not make it not a rule.

The multiweapon fighting feat explicitly states that the normal rulse for multiweapon fighting when you have more than one off hand is that you get an extra attack with each offhand.

The FAQs and designer posts that have been cited all assume a two handed character. Some of them even explicitly stat this as the assumption.

Multiweapon fighting has always worked this way. It's a hold-over from 3.5 that they did not change with the new pathfinder rules.

There is not going to be a FAQ on this because the rules are perfectly clear. Some people are this thread think that the crazy stupid Ball of Arms man shouldn't be allowed, and are trying to twist the rules to say something they do not say.

I think we all agree that Ball of Arms Man is stupid and should never be actually allowed. But if we are looking at RAW with no rational exclusions, it does work. Luckily, there is no reason to play strict rules as written in this case. The worst offender, RAW wise, is PFS, and it already bans Bestiary feats. So unless a GM decides that Ball of Arms Man is okay-dokay, this isn't a real problem that you make up reasons it somehow isn't RAW.


Victor, by that logic Hekatonkhires, with their 100 arms, should have 100 attacks. They don't.


Nocte ex Mortis wrote:
Victor, by that logic Hekatonkhires, with their 100 arms, should have 100 attacks. They don't.

Actually it can have many more than 100 attacks,

Hundred-Handed Whirlwind (Ex)

A hekatonkheires carries several dozen weapons of various types in its hundred hands, but when it attacks in melee, you don't have to resolve each of these as a separate attack. Instead, when the titan attacks with its weapons, it rolls its attacks normally (either one attack for a standard action, or four as a full-round action) and hits every creature in its reach each time an attack roll exceeds that creature's AC. If any such attack roll results in a possible critical hit, the critical is applied to one creature of the hekatonkheires's choosing. The hekatonkheires can choose to deal bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage as a free action on each separate hit.


Not really. It's Improved Whirlwind Attack, an Epic Feat, not 100 individual attacks, each with potentially their own riders of abilities.

Edit: To put it another way, that's as baseless as saying that a Dragon that, for some reason, was able to take Whirlwind Attack, was really getting upwards of 200 attacks with its tail slap.


wraithstrike wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
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.

That is only because monsters get special abilities saying they can do X, which is explained in the rules. As an example most PC's don't get all around sight or trample. If there was a feat that had prereqs and gave them the equivalent of a monster ability such as snatch(which acts like grab) then they could take it. Most players just don't get to be huge. As another example nothing stops them from taking flyby attack, and the monster feat rules specifically say they can take the feats. They just normally don't qualify for them. That is different than "No PC allowed" or "Ask you GM".

PS: Yes, I know everything is up to the GM*, but unless that verbage is there like it is for a cleric trying to get domains with no deity it is assumed to be legal.

*I had to state that because I am sure someone was going to say it as if was an unknown fact.

I wasn't addressing Bestiary Feats being available to PCs; they undoubtedly are unless the GM specifically says no.

I'm simply restating the position that the developers have stated on more than one occasion that sometimes monsters can simply do things that PCs can't. Meaning it doesn't always work to say "A monster can do X, therefore I should be able to as well." That may be the case. It may not. And as was mentioned on the last page, the reason why a monster can do something but a PC cannot is not always spelled out very well in the rules (if at all).

Thus, the Marilith is not a persuasive example when arguing about whether multiarmed PCs also ought to be able to get six weapon attacks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nocte ex Mortis wrote:
Victor, by that logic Hekatonkhires, with their 100 arms, should have 100 attacks. They don't.

That is because just like the 3.5 epic version the statblock is written to go against the rule.

The flavor idea seems to be that it can only use so many arms at one time, which makes sense because no GM really wants to make 100 attack rolls, nor does any player want to be subject to them.

Yeah, they should have put in language specifically explaining why the statblock is the way it is, but the statblock alone shows how it works. In case you missed it upthread there was a link to an official paizo monster with 4 hands, and it used

Here is a Pathfinder monster using the multi-weapon fighting feat, not multiweapon mastery.

Four-Armed Mudra Skeleton

Quote:
Melee short sword +1 (1d6+2/19–20), 3 short swords +1 (1d6+1/19–20) or 4 claws +3 (1d4+2)

ok, so maybe I am not gone yet.. :)


fretgod99 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
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.

That is only because monsters get special abilities saying they can do X, which is explained in the rules. As an example most PC's don't get all around sight or trample. If there was a feat that had prereqs and gave them the equivalent of a monster ability such as snatch(which acts like grab) then they could take it. Most players just don't get to be huge. As another example nothing stops them from taking flyby attack, and the monster feat rules specifically say they can take the feats. They just normally don't qualify for them. That is different than "No PC allowed" or "Ask you GM".

PS: Yes, I know everything is up to the GM*, but unless that verbage is there like it is for a cleric trying to get domains with no deity it is assumed to be legal.

*I had to state that because I am sure someone was going to say it as if was an unknown fact.

I wasn't addressing Bestiary Feats being available to PCs; they undoubtedly are unless the GM specifically says no.

I'm simply restating the position that the developers have stated on more than one occasion that sometimes monsters can simply do things that PCs can't. Meaning it doesn't always work to say "A monster can do X, therefore I should be able to as well." That may be the case. It may not. And as was mentioned on the last page, the reason why a monster can do something but a PC cannot is not always spelled out very well in the rules (if at all).

Thus, the Marilith is not a persuasive example when arguing about whether multiarmed PCs also ought to be able to get six weapon attacks.

I do agree it is not always spelled out well, but with regard to feats they work the same. If a monster and a PC have the same body parts and then the feat should work the same for both is what I am saying.

Others are saying because someone has the "PC" tag they can't do certain things even if that is the only difference between the PC and the NPC. I think I misinterpreted you as taking the same stance.


If one does not get extra attacks from having more then one does a Skeleton, Four-Armed Mudra gain three extra short sword attacks?


Multi armed in the race builder even says that you get more off hands.

Vestigial arms clearly do not do this.

Can we assume that any monster published before that book with more then 2 arms has this trait?

If so having more arms would not necessarily give you that race trait and edilons would not get it because the do not get race traits.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Onyxlion wrote:
Nocte ex Mortis wrote:
Victor, by that logic Hekatonkhires, with their 100 arms, should have 100 attacks. They don't.

Actually it can have many more than 100 attacks,

Hundred-Handed Whirlwind (Ex)

A hekatonkheires carries several dozen weapons of various types in its hundred hands, but when it attacks in melee, you don't have to resolve each of these as a separate attack. Instead, when the titan attacks with its weapons, it rolls its attacks normally (either one attack for a standard action, or four as a full-round action) and hits every creature in its reach each time an attack roll exceeds that creature's AC. If any such attack roll results in a possible critical hit, the critical is applied to one creature of the hekatonkheires's choosing. The hekatonkheires can choose to deal bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage as a free action on each separate hit.

I missed the bold part back when I first saw this guy. That text implies that while you don't have to resolve the 100 attacks separately, you could. That's truly frightening...

EDIT: 103 Attacks. I forgot that he gets four with his primary due to BAB, and 99 offhand attacks. O_O


Holy crap.


Wow, what a mess. I've always went with the interpretation that every additional hand a creature possess grants an additional off-hand attack, assuming each limb works at the same capacity as a normal limb. It's how it was handled in 3.5 anyway. It's an intuitive system until you introduce armor spikes, flurry, kicks, and other mechanics that broaden the definition of an "off-hand". I also lean towards the idea that multi-weapon fighting replaces two-weapon fighting in all instances for a creature with three or more hands (including other feat prerequisites and benefits).

That said, it sounds like the problem has less to do with the rules for multi-weapon fighting and more with a book handing player characters a means of getting 22 functional arms and hands. PC races with 4 arms are scarce for a reason. So however the rules are written, I'm sure we'll see it nerfed (preferably through errata). I wouldn't mind seeing the number of off-hands an eidolon can utilize limited by the restriction on maximum natural attacks. That sounds fair to me.


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?

after about 4 you probably would get -17,-20,-23,-26 and they wont hit unless you have a uber high hit chance

151 to 189 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.