Monk, Is there any reason for it


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

251 to 300 of 405 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

To beef up monsters. For every two monk levels you add to a monster you add 1 to its CR, up to a total CR increase equal to its base CR. This means you can add:

  • + 2d8+(2 x con mod) HP
  • 2 weird bonus feats
  • + wis to AC and cmd
  • Evasion
  • +3 all saves
  • 2 stunning attacks per day
  • +1 to BAB
  • Skill points equal to 12+(2 x int mod)

To a monster all for a total CR increase of +1. Doesn't matter which monster because monk is always considered a non-associated class. Dont forget to modify their base stats by +4, +4, +2, +2, +0 and -2.

Slap that on an owlbear or a dragon. Or a pack of wolves. Hilarity ensues.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
christos gurd wrote:
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
This sounds like a terrible idea for a harem anime, to be honest.
Aren't they all?
if you aren't familiar with tenchi universe or fruits basket, yes

Ranma 1/2 was also very good. Saber Marionette J as well. Does Kenichi count?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Darkholme wrote:
christos gurd wrote:
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
This sounds like a terrible idea for a harem anime, to be honest.
Aren't they all?
if you aren't familiar with tenchi universe or fruits basket, yes
Ranma 1/2 was also very good. Saber Marionette J as well. Does Kenichi count?

Kenichi ALWAYS counts. now i want to make appachai.


Archomedes wrote:

To beef up monsters. For every two monk levels you add to a monster you add 1 to its CR, up to a total CR increase equal to its base CR. This means you can add:

  • + 2d8+(2 x con mod) HP
  • 2 weird bonus feats
  • + wis to AC and cmd
  • Evasion
  • +3 all saves
  • 2 stunning attacks per day
  • +1 to BAB
  • Skill points equal to 12+(2 x int mod)

To a monster all for a total CR increase of +1. Doesn't matter which monster because monk is always considered a non-associated class. Dont forget to modify their base stats by +4, +4, +2, +2, +0 and -2.

Slap that on an owlbear or a dragon. Or a pack of wolves. Hilarity ensues.

Some of those won't actually work on natural attacks. Stunning Fist, Flurry of Blows, and the increased damage both require unarmed strikes, which are specifically called out as NOT being the same as natural attacks. So, a dragon with levels in monk couldn't use Stunning Tail or Stunning Claw, it would have to make a fist and just punch something. Which it can totally do, if only the other dragons wouldn't tease it mercilessly for trying to fight like a human.

Also, I think it depends on the monster type, but some would get a CR boost equal to monk level minus one, while other would get roughly the rate you described. It depends on how the creature normally functions and whether the new class levels synergize well with the beastie.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ElementalXX wrote:

I think the problem of the monk is that its really defensive in general. It has the best saves, inmunities to load of things and different ways of ac. The game however asumes the character has to be active so it incentives to play agresively.

Now why the monk sucks is not the class, its because:

Beign unarmored sucks and its quite unsoported.

Beign unarmed sucks and its quite unsoported.

The system has problems with this styles and how to make the work. The monk struggles to make them work but ultimately its still reliant on magic items to work. Now the monk doesnt really has a "role" its probably similar to fighter, its not an skillmonkey, its a fighter with better saves, but worst hit dice, but also worst damage potential.

Zen archer, beign ranged, get the damage output the regular monk lacks while retaining good defenses and is not married to the unarmed strike option.

The thing is, they really aren't really defensive in general. Their good saves are nice but the Barbarian and Paladin's are better, and the Ranger has earlier and better access to anti-magic and/or poisons, and in-house access to things like freedom of movement.

In terms of AC, monk AC sucks for most levels until they are very high level and expend a lot of money into their AC (like bracers of armor and such). By default, their AC is 10 + DexMod + WisMod, which is unlikely to be more than 16 if you're doing standard point buy (and is very swingy in random-generations). You need dual 18s to match the AC of a 1st level martial with a 14 Dex (chainmail + 2 dex = 18) and if they use a shield (AC 19 or 20) you're a long way behind. The ability to upgrade both armor and shield enhancements along the way drive the difference further.

I often wonder what people are talking about when they talk about monks being super defensive. It takes a lot of effort to get them to even catch-up to normal martials, and that's before considering how hamstrung their options are (normal, that is to say non-zen non-sohei monks have pitiful ranged attack options for example).


Ashiel wrote:


The thing is, they really aren't really defensive in general. Their good saves are nice but the Barbarian and Paladin's are better, and the Ranger has earlier and better access to anti-magic and/or poisons, and in-house access to things like freedom of movement.

Barbarians only have one Good save.


christos gurd wrote:
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
This sounds like a terrible idea for a harem anime, to be honest.
Aren't they all?
if you aren't familiar with tenchi universe or fruits basket, yes

Technically fruit basket is a reverse harem. Tenchi universe was pretty good, as was ouran. Akame ga kill is a new harem-ish one that's pretty cool.


DrDeth wrote:
Ashiel wrote:


The thing is, they really aren't really defensive in general. Their good saves are nice but the Barbarian and Paladin's are better, and the Ranger has earlier and better access to anti-magic and/or poisons, and in-house access to things like freedom of movement.
Barbarians only have one Good save.

GoodRightFun Barbarians have all good saves and one immunity. :P

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Akame ga kill is a new harem-ish one that's pretty cool.

I need to continue with that one. First ep was promising.


Cptexploderman wrote:

If everyone only played the so called powerful classes parties would only be comprised of Gun slingers, Summoners and Wizards ( Arcanists now as well).

Well, there would also be some archers. And come to think of it, some of those would be Zen Archers! See?? Monks are just great!


How would a Kasatha Monk/Sacred Fist work? How would they normal attack work, and how would their flurry of blows work?


I like monk, I like the abilities, I like the concept, everything.

Except it's mechanically really weak, generally useless, need around 4 18s to halfway keep up and I have literally never had access to most of the cool abilities because they kick in around level 12-15 and the campaign stops at 5-11.

Still I try, try and fail. I should probably learn some day.


Ashiel wrote:
The thing is, they really aren't really defensive in general. Their good saves are nice but the Barbarian and Paladin's are better, and the Ranger has earlier and better access to anti-magic and/or poisons, and in-house access to things like freedom of movement.

To be fair, falling behind Paladins and superstitious Barbarians is not indicative of a class having weak defense as much as it's indicative of those two classes having really good defenses. Rangers have overall better defenses, but usually have lower touch AC and will saves when compared to Monks. They also don't have the number of immunities that Monks have.

I think the only real problem with Monk's defense is AC, which can range from really high to really low (especially at low levels).

DrDeth wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
The thing is, they really aren't really defensive in general. Their good saves are nice but the Barbarian and Paladin's are better, and the Ranger has earlier and better access to anti-magic and/or poisons, and in-house access to things like freedom of movement.
Barbarians only have one Good save.

True. But they have amazing class features that compensate for that, effectively giving them 3 good saves and great touch AC. Kinda like Paladins, who effectively have good Reflex saves and great Will saves even if they dump Wis and only have mediocre Dex.

If a class has slow save progression, but has built-in tools to compensate for that, then that class effectively has good saves.

Dark Archive

He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named wrote:
How would a Kasatha Monk/Sacred Fist work? How would they normal attack work, and how would their flurry of blows work?

It works the same. Except that it can have melee weapons and ranged weapons (or a variety of different melee weapons) drawn at the same time, and switch back and forth between them as wanted. For flurry of blows, you get to narrate that attacks are happening from all four of your arms, not just the normal 2.

However, I believe that if you can give your Kasatha Claws somehow, then you could combine claws with flurry, giving you four full-bab (3/4 bab for a monk) attacks that do 1d4+str, in addition to your flurry (which would be done with elbows, knees, or kicks)


except you cant use natural attacks while using flurry of blows--it's specifically called out in the FoB text. likely to prevent someone from having 5+ attacks at level 1 (bite/clawx2/FoBx2)

Dark Archive

That's what I get for not looking up the rule.

Then no. You get no benefit from being a Kasartha Monk. If you're a Kasartha Fighter, I think you could TWF and get an additional two claw attacks. Again, haven't looked it up, and there may be something in there specifically prohibiting natural attacks. In which case you can still get extra attacks with a greatsword in two of your hands.


Well... Flurry grants Two Weapon Fighting
But what if I take Multiweapon Fighting which replaces it? Do I still get the Improved and Greater variants?
Multiweapon fighting allows for attacks with virtually limitless arms as its text
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.

Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms.

Would this make them better at Monking?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

you'd still be limited to the monk's flurry attack amount, not the number of arms you had, so no i think.

also, flurry acts AS two weapon fighting, it doesnt actually grant the feats to my knowledge.


Ashiel wrote:
ElementalXX wrote:

I think the problem of the monk is that its really defensive in general. It has the best saves, inmunities to load of things and different ways of ac. The game however asumes the character has to be active so it incentives to play agresively.

Now why the monk sucks is not the class, its because:

Beign unarmored sucks and its quite unsoported.

Beign unarmed sucks and its quite unsoported.

The system has problems with this styles and how to make the work. The monk struggles to make them work but ultimately its still reliant on magic items to work. Now the monk doesnt really has a "role" its probably similar to fighter, its not an skillmonkey, its a fighter with better saves, but worst hit dice, but also worst damage potential.

Zen archer, beign ranged, get the damage output the regular monk lacks while retaining good defenses and is not married to the unarmed strike option.

The thing is, they really aren't really defensive in general. Their good saves are nice but the Barbarian and Paladin's are better, and the Ranger has earlier and better access to anti-magic and/or poisons, and in-house access to things like freedom of movement.

In terms of AC, monk AC sucks for most levels until they are very high level and expend a lot of money into their AC (like bracers of armor and such). By default, their AC is 10 + DexMod + WisMod, which is unlikely to be more than 16 if you're doing standard point buy (and is very swingy in random-generations). You need dual 18s to match the AC of a 1st level martial with a 14 Dex (chainmail + 2 dex = 18) and if they use a shield (AC 19 or 20) you're a long way behind. The ability to upgrade both armor and shield enhancements along the way drive the difference further.

I often wonder what people are talking about when they talk about monks being super defensive. It takes a lot of effort to get them to even catch-up to normal martials, and that's before considering how hamstrung their options are (normal, that is to say...

Fighting Defensively with 3+ ranks in acrobatics grants a +3 dodge bonus to AC, albeit at a -4 penalty on all attack rolls.

Crane Style reduces that to -2 on attack rolls, and increases the bonus to +4.

Crane Wing makes that bonus against one attack by the opponent +8, not hard to do if you are using the Dimensional Dervish feat chain.

Crane Riposte reduces the penalty on attacks to -1.

So in total, by fighting defensively on a full blown monk, you take a measly -1 on attacks and gain +4 AC. That doesn't even include the bonus from dodge. Really, AC looks like 15 + Dex + Wis + monk AC bonus.

Between Dimensional Dervish and Crane Style (even post nerf) the monk has some pretty strong options that rival spellcasters trying to dip martial. Being able to make that full round attack on any turn is totally worth 2 ki points.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Post-errata CW is a bad feat and you should feel bad for even suggesting it!


Lemmy wrote:
Post-errata CW is a bad feat and you should feel bad for even suggesting it!

Fair Point


BTW, I now realize my tone could be interpreted as aggressive. It was supposed to be a joke. (Although CW is an awful feat).


AndIMustMask wrote:

you'd still be limited to the monk's flurry attack amount, not the number of arms you had, so no i think.

also, flurry acts AS two weapon fighting, it doesnt actually grant the feats to my knowledge.

What if I was not using Flurry and instead just normal full attacking or even using a regular attack (with loads of offhands)


Then you get to attack with your 3/4th monk BAB instead of full BAB. Also, the two-weapon fighting chain only gives you 1 attack per feat past two-weapon fighting, not one attack per offhand.


Bob Bob Bob wrote:
Then you get to attack with your 3/4th monk BAB instead of full BAB. Also, the two-weapon fighting chain only gives you 1 attack per feat past two-weapon fighting, not one attack per offhand.

No but Multiweapon Fighting does.


He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named wrote:
Bob Bob Bob wrote:
Then you get to attack with your 3/4th monk BAB instead of full BAB. Also, the two-weapon fighting chain only gives you 1 attack per feat past two-weapon fighting, not one attack per offhand.
No but Multiweapon Fighting does.

It's also a monster feat that players can't grab.


He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named wrote:
Bob Bob Bob wrote:
Then you get to attack with your 3/4th monk BAB instead of full BAB. Also, the two-weapon fighting chain only gives you 1 attack per feat past two-weapon fighting, not one attack per offhand.
No but Multiweapon Fighting does.

Not to mention blatantly untrue. It does not state you get additional attacks. It states all of your offhands only take penalties as per normal for twf not you can make attacks with all of them in that turn.


Thomas Long 175 wrote:
He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named wrote:
Bob Bob Bob wrote:
Then you get to attack with your 3/4th monk BAB instead of full BAB. Also, the two-weapon fighting chain only gives you 1 attack per feat past two-weapon fighting, not one attack per offhand.
No but Multiweapon Fighting does.
Not to mention blatantly untrue. It does not state you get additional attacks. It states all of your offhands only take penalties as per normal for twf not you can make attacks with all of them in that turn.

Actually it says Off Hands, the Two-Weapon Fighting says Off-Hand.

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.

Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms.
So why not say that it only uses one?

Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. See Two-Weapon Fighting.

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.

So... why does Multiweapon Fighting exist if it doesn't do anything different from Two-Weapon Fighting.


He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named wrote:

So... why does Multiweapon Fighting exist if it doesn't do anything different from Two-Weapon Fighting.

Because you can alternate which offhand you use so long as your total attack remains the same but TWF will only affect one of them by RAW.

Even ignoring that fact, you quoted the feat yourself and never does it say anything about giving more attacks.


No it makes note to call it out as off hands, as in plural.


This is all very poorly written (because it assume a humanoid with two arms and two legs as the default) but you should always be able to attack with every arm you can hold a weapon in. Marilith is a good example of that. What I was pointing out is that there is no "Improved Multiweapon Fighting" so you'll never actually get a bunch of iteratives, you'll only get one extra off-hand attack from Improved/Greater Two-Weapon Fighting (assuming Multiweapon Fighting counts as Two-Weapon Fighting for prereqs, otherwise you'll never get extra attacks).

Unless of course the magical unwritten rules say that an Unarmed Strike is actually a double weapon in which both sides are light so you can never get more than one offhand attack with an Unarmed Strike. Or some other restrictions on Unarmed Strikes so you can only use it as two different weapons.


Bob Bob Bob wrote:

This is all very poorly written (because it assume a humanoid with two arms and two legs as the default) but you should always be able to attack with every arm you can hold a weapon in. Marilith is a good example of that. What I was pointing out is that there is no "Improved Multiweapon Fighting" so you'll never actually get a bunch of iteratives, you'll only get one extra off-hand attack from Improved/Greater Two-Weapon Fighting (assuming Multiweapon Fighting counts as Two-Weapon Fighting for prereqs, otherwise you'll never get extra attacks).

Unless of course the magical unwritten rules say that an Unarmed Strike is actually a double weapon in which both sides are light so you can never get more than one offhand attack with an Unarmed Strike. Or some other restrictions on Unarmed Strikes so you can only use it as two different weapons.

Multiweapon Fighting is written specifically for beings with more then 2 arms and legs. It is specially written for this.

But because it says Off-Hands (As in more then one) implies that it is more then one off-hand which means as many as you have off-hands. Yes this is poorly written but under the way this is written it implies more then 1 off-hand attack. Simply because it replaces or makes mention of Two-Weapon Fighting does not mean it is automatically under those restrictions.


Bob Bob Bob wrote:

This is all very poorly written (because it assume a humanoid with two arms and two legs as the default) but you should always be able to attack with every arm you can hold a weapon in. Marilith is a good example of that. What I was pointing out is that there is no "Improved Multiweapon Fighting" so you'll never actually get a bunch of iteratives, you'll only get one extra off-hand attack from Improved/Greater Two-Weapon Fighting (assuming Multiweapon Fighting counts as Two-Weapon Fighting for prereqs, otherwise you'll never get extra attacks).

Unless of course the magical unwritten rules say that an Unarmed Strike is actually a double weapon in which both sides are light so you can never get more than one offhand attack with an Unarmed Strike. Or some other restrictions on Unarmed Strikes so you can only use it as two different weapons.

The rules in the core rule book flat out state you only gain an extra attack with your second weapon.

This implies more than one offhand attack because even normally you can get them, such as under improved two weapon fighting.

Only under normal two weapon fighting say you had 3 arms. Say one arm had a shock weapon, one a frost, and one a fire. At BAB +6 with Imp TWF you would get 4 attacks. The two main attacks, lets say both go to fire. Its held in your main hand. The first offhand goes to cold. It hits but the creature seems resilient to the damage. So you switch to the shock one for your second offhand attack, but its a second off hand weapon you're using this turn.

This is still one hundred percent legal, and has been stated as such by the designers. You can alternate between weapons so long as you do not ever go above the max you would normally get. However because TWF only covers one off hand the last attack would be at the normal -10 because its a different offhand.

Multiweapon fighting fixes this by allowing you to switch interchangeably between your offhands without being penalized. Never, anywhere in its wording or the core rule book however, does it grant you extra attacks. Furthermore, explanation still solves for the plural because it is possible to get plural offhand attacks even with two arms.


Also entries for the monsters that use the feat (because the feat shows up in the Bestiary first) all get multiple attacks. Regular BAB (minus 2) plus 1 extra attack (also -2, assuming light weapon) per arm (well, after the first arm).

Why are we talking about this? Flurry = TWF (sorta) and therefore question about multi-armed monks? Trying to make it apply to feet so you can get more flurry attacks? I've lost the thread.


No one is mentioning flurry. I mean when you move to the opponent and attack (Since you cannot move and flurry).

So.. Multi Weapon Fighting is meant to stop a penalty.. to something that is not penalized? Choosing a different offhand for your extra attack is still given the -4 (10-6-2=4) same as the ice weapon hand.

So what exactly is the point of that feat if.. well it does virtually nothing of value?

Because your example makes no sense. Sure at +6/+1 with ITWF you get 4 attacks... but you do not get more penalties for changing your mind (Just the -5 the second off-hand always gets)


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Bob Bob Bob wrote:

This is all very poorly written (because it assume a humanoid with two arms and two legs as the default) but you should always be able to attack with every arm you can hold a weapon in. Marilith is a good example of that. What I was pointing out is that there is no "Improved Multiweapon Fighting" so you'll never actually get a bunch of iteratives, you'll only get one extra off-hand attack from Improved/Greater Two-Weapon Fighting (assuming Multiweapon Fighting counts as Two-Weapon Fighting for prereqs, otherwise you'll never get extra attacks).

Unless of course the magical unwritten rules say that an Unarmed Strike is actually a double weapon in which both sides are light so you can never get more than one offhand attack with an Unarmed Strike. Or some other restrictions on Unarmed Strikes so you can only use it as two different weapons.

unarmed strike is tied to your body slot, sort of like spiked armor. so there really isn't anything stopping you from gaining more than 2, but the rules seem to assume you won't ask for an infinite amount of off-hand attacks.

technically, the unspoken rule of TWF would allow creatures born with 4 arms to MWF with 4 unarmed attacks.


He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named wrote:

No one is mentioning flurry. I mean when you move to the opponent and attack (Since you cannot move and flurry).

So.. Multi Weapon Fighting is meant to stop a penalty.. to something that is not penalized? Choosing a different offhand for your extra attack is still given the -4 (10-6-2=4) same as the ice weapon hand.

So what exactly is the point of that feat if.. well it does virtually nothing of value?

The third hand would not have the same penalty as the second off hand with just TWF.

Two Weapon Fighting wrote:


You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the secondary weapon.

Prerequisite: Dex 15.

Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. See Two-Weapon Fighting.

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.

Two Weapon Fighting only addresses a second weapon, which means that if you alternate on your off hand attacks between weapons, any additional offhand weapons beyond the first will take a full -10 instead of -4 for being offhand.

Multi Weapon Fighting allows you to alternate off hand weapons with your off hand attacks and not take penalties.


Bandw2 wrote:
Bob Bob Bob wrote:

This is all very poorly written (because it assume a humanoid with two arms and two legs as the default) but you should always be able to attack with every arm you can hold a weapon in. Marilith is a good example of that. What I was pointing out is that there is no "Improved Multiweapon Fighting" so you'll never actually get a bunch of iteratives, you'll only get one extra off-hand attack from Improved/Greater Two-Weapon Fighting (assuming Multiweapon Fighting counts as Two-Weapon Fighting for prereqs, otherwise you'll never get extra attacks).

Unless of course the magical unwritten rules say that an Unarmed Strike is actually a double weapon in which both sides are light so you can never get more than one offhand attack with an Unarmed Strike. Or some other restrictions on Unarmed Strikes so you can only use it as two different weapons.

unarmed strike is tied to your body slot, sort of like spiked armor. so there really isn't anything stopping you from gaining more than 2, but the rules seem to assume you won't ask for an infinite amount of off-hand attacks.

technically, the unspoken rule of TWF would allow creatures born with 4 arms to MWF with 4 unarmed attacks.

That is the way I read MWF because otherwise why does it exist?

Also if you got Claws on two of those arms don't you get to add those attacks in as well?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Bob Bob Bob wrote:

This is all very poorly written (because it assume a humanoid with two arms and two legs as the default) but you should always be able to attack with every arm you can hold a weapon in. Marilith is a good example of that. What I was pointing out is that there is no "Improved Multiweapon Fighting" so you'll never actually get a bunch of iteratives, you'll only get one extra off-hand attack from Improved/Greater Two-Weapon Fighting (assuming Multiweapon Fighting counts as Two-Weapon Fighting for prereqs, otherwise you'll never get extra attacks).

Unless of course the magical unwritten rules say that an Unarmed Strike is actually a double weapon in which both sides are light so you can never get more than one offhand attack with an Unarmed Strike. Or some other restrictions on Unarmed Strikes so you can only use it as two different weapons.

The rules in the core rule book flat out state you only gain an extra attack with your second weapon.

This implies more than one offhand attack because even normally you can get them, such as under improved two weapon fighting.

Only under normal two weapon fighting say you had 3 arms. Say one arm had a shock weapon, one a frost, and one a fire. At BAB +6 with Imp TWF you would get 4 attacks. The two main attacks, lets say both go to fire. Its held in your main hand. The first offhand goes to cold. It hits but the creature seems resilient to the damage. So you switch to the shock one for your second offhand attack, but its a second off hand weapon you're using this turn.

This is still one hundred percent legal, and has been stated as such by the designers. You can alternate between weapons so long as you do not ever go above the max you would normally get. However because TWF only covers one off hand the last attack would be at the normal -10 because its a different offhand.

Multiweapon fighting fixes this by allowing you to switch interchangeably between your offhands without being penalized. Never, anywhere in its wording or...

there is no penalty to choosing a different off-hand to attack with, I'm not sure where you go this idea from. main-hands and off-hands are metaphysical objects not tied to physical hands. you choose them on attack, and there is no penalty for doing so.


Bandw2 wrote:
there is no penalty to choosing a different off-hand to attack with, I'm not sure where you go this idea from. main-hands and off-hands are metaphysical objects not tied to physical hands. you choose them on attack, and there is no penalty for doing so.

Yet your choices do affect you for the entirety of that turn, which means selecting one offhand in a given turn means that Two weapon fighting cannot apply to another. It only applies to one off hand.

And technically off hands exist as both physical and metaphysical abstracts, else this argument wouldn't even exist. You wouldn't get extra offhand attacks for multiple limbs because it wouldn't be tied to your physical set of limbs, and thus you could have 1000 arms and never get any extra attacks.

No matter what you did, you'd only have one main hand and one off hand with which to make attacks with.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Bob Bob Bob wrote:

This is all very poorly written (because it assume a humanoid with two arms and two legs as the default) but you should always be able to attack with every arm you can hold a weapon in. Marilith is a good example of that. What I was pointing out is that there is no "Improved Multiweapon Fighting" so you'll never actually get a bunch of iteratives, you'll only get one extra off-hand attack from Improved/Greater Two-Weapon Fighting (assuming Multiweapon Fighting counts as Two-Weapon Fighting for prereqs, otherwise you'll never get extra attacks).

Unless of course the magical unwritten rules say that an Unarmed Strike is actually a double weapon in which both sides are light so you can never get more than one offhand attack with an Unarmed Strike. Or some other restrictions on Unarmed Strikes so you can only use it as two different weapons.

unarmed strike is tied to your body slot, sort of like spiked armor. so there really isn't anything stopping you from gaining more than 2, but the rules seem to assume you won't ask for an infinite amount of off-hand attacks.

technically, the unspoken rule of TWF would allow creatures born with 4 arms to MWF with 4 unarmed attacks.

That is the way I read MWF because otherwise why does it exist?

Also if you got Claws on two of those arms don't you get to add those attacks in as well?

if you do not use the claws limbs as part of a manufactured weapon attack then yes.

also, like I said, to be more clear since i think i understand his problem. you do not gain off-hand attacks via gaining limbs. The exception is the summoner's eidolon.

The rules basically assume you have two arms, if you gain more, they can do arm things, but they cannot give you additional attacks. However, they specifically said that if a race has more than 2, then they have as many additional off-hand attacks as necessary. This of course is so the bestiary doesn't go bonkers with all those creatures with weird numbers of arms getting nerfed.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
there is no penalty to choosing a different off-hand to attack with, I'm not sure where you go this idea from. main-hands and off-hands are metaphysical objects not tied to physical hands. you choose them on attack, and there is no penalty for doing so.

Yet your choices do affect you for the entirety of that turn, which means selecting one offhand in a given turn means that Two weapon fighting cannot apply to another. It only applies to one off hand.

And technically off hands exist as both physical and metaphysical abstracts, else this argument wouldn't even exist. You wouldn't get extra offhand attacks for multiple limbs because it wouldn't be tied to your physical set of limbs, and thus you could have 1000 arms and never get any extra attacks.

No matter what you did, you'd only have one main hand and one off hand with which to make attacks with.

no prior to the attack roll, you do not need to choose what hand is your effective off-hand. Just like you can switch what hand is your primary as part of a full attack(by not TWF and just full attacking and deciding to use the sword in your other hand for the next attack).

look at my other post regarding races versus gained arms, against your comment on 1000 arms.

and no, because you can have you hands full and still TWF with non-hand requiring weapons. such as armored spikes and a boulder helmet. your armor spikes are your main hand and your helmet is your off-hand.


So if I had this, then I could for example make my main and offhand attack, and then two claw attacks.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named wrote:
So if I had this, then I could for example make my main and offhand attack, and then two claw attacks.

had what? if you had 4 limbs with 2 with claws and 2 with swords you could attack with all of them even if you had no feats.


Bandw2 wrote:


if you do not use the claws limbs as part of a manufactured weapon attack then yes.

also, like I said, to be more clear since i think i understand his problem. you do not gain off-hand attacks via gaining limbs. The exception is the summoner's eidolon.

The rules basically assume you have two arms, if you gain more, they can do arm things, but they cannot give you additional attacks. However, the specifically said that if a race has more than 2, then they have as many additional off-hand attacks as necessary. This of course is so the bestiary doesn't go bonkers with all those...

Even the argument on off hands is kinda null in void. Flat from the core rule book

Two Weapon Fighting

Two Weapon Fighting wrote:

See FAQ at right for more information.

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.

Table: Two-weapon Fighting Penalties summarizes the interaction of all these factors.

As per core rule book, it doesn't matter one whit if you had infinite off hands. You get one extra attack if you wield a second weapon. Not a third, fourth or fifth. Just the second.


Bandw2 wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
there is no penalty to choosing a different off-hand to attack with, I'm not sure where you go this idea from. main-hands and off-hands are metaphysical objects not tied to physical hands. you choose them on attack, and there is no penalty for doing so.

Yet your choices do affect you for the entirety of that turn, which means selecting one offhand in a given turn means that Two weapon fighting cannot apply to another. It only applies to one off hand.

And technically off hands exist as both physical and metaphysical abstracts, else this argument wouldn't even exist. You wouldn't get extra offhand attacks for multiple limbs because it wouldn't be tied to your physical set of limbs, and thus you could have 1000 arms and never get any extra attacks.

No matter what you did, you'd only have one main hand and one off hand with which to make attacks with.

no prior to the attack roll, you do not need to choose what hand is your effective off-hand. Just like you can switch what hand is your primary as part of a full attack(by not TWF and just full attacking and deciding to use the sword in your other hand for the next attack).

look at my other post regarding races versus gained arms, against your comment on 1000 arms.

and no, because you can have you hands full and still TWF with non-hand requiring weapons. such as armored spikes and a boulder helmet. your armor spikes are your main hand and your helmet is your off-hand.

Actually its been clarified by designers that they count as using your main and off hand for purpose of things like the boot knife. So no, you couldn't use manufactured weapons in hands and then attack with say your boot knife.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:


if you do not use the claws limbs as part of a manufactured weapon attack then yes.

also, like I said, to be more clear since i think i understand his problem. you do not gain off-hand attacks via gaining limbs. The exception is the summoner's eidolon.

The rules basically assume you have two arms, if you gain more, they can do arm things, but they cannot give you additional attacks. However, the specifically said that if a race has more than 2, then they have as many additional off-hand attacks as necessary. This of course is so the bestiary doesn't go bonkers with all those...

Even the argument on off hands is kinda null in void. Flat from the core rule book

Two Weapon Fighting

Two Weapon Fighting wrote:

See FAQ at right for more information.

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.

Table: Two-weapon Fighting Penalties summarizes the interaction of all these factors.

As per core rule book, it doesn't matter one whit if you had infinite off hands. You get one extra attack if you wield a second weapon. Not a third, fourth or fifth. Just the second.

exactly, but if you have 4 swords, you're no longer two-weapon fighting. you're multiweapon fighting. As has been mentioned the book assumes you have 2 hands. any language is confined to this restriction and thus any case where you have more than 2 hands, do not apply under normal rules. AKA, the rules don;t not permit a Third weapon, they just don't cover what happens.

AKA, the rules get derailed and into the fluffy zone of "ask your GM", where I am basically repeating what the devs have said for their FAQ on alchemist's multiple arms shenanigans.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
there is no penalty to choosing a different off-hand to attack with, I'm not sure where you go this idea from. main-hands and off-hands are metaphysical objects not tied to physical hands. you choose them on attack, and there is no penalty for doing so.

Yet your choices do affect you for the entirety of that turn, which means selecting one offhand in a given turn means that Two weapon fighting cannot apply to another. It only applies to one off hand.

And technically off hands exist as both physical and metaphysical abstracts, else this argument wouldn't even exist. You wouldn't get extra offhand attacks for multiple limbs because it wouldn't be tied to your physical set of limbs, and thus you could have 1000 arms and never get any extra attacks.

No matter what you did, you'd only have one main hand and one off hand with which to make attacks with.

no prior to the attack roll, you do not need to choose what hand is your effective off-hand. Just like you can switch what hand is your primary as part of a full attack(by not TWF and just full attacking and deciding to use the sword in your other hand for the next attack).

look at my other post regarding races versus gained arms, against your comment on 1000 arms.

and no, because you can have you hands full and still TWF with non-hand requiring weapons. such as armored spikes and a boulder helmet. your armor spikes are your main hand and your helmet is your off-hand.

Actually its been clarified by designers that they count as using your main and off hand for purpose of things like the boot knife. So no, you couldn't use manufactured weapons in hands and then attack with say your boot knife.

I didn't say anywhere I was attacking with hands, his hands are FULL. or cut off, or otherwise unusable, you have no free hands for any purpose. you still have a main hand and a off-hand attack if you attempt a TWF with weird weapons.

anyway this doesn't change the fact that you do not need to select a weapon for any given hand until you roll the attack for that hand.


Bandw2 wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:


if you do not use the claws limbs as part of a manufactured weapon attack then yes.

also, like I said, to be more clear since i think i understand his problem. you do not gain off-hand attacks via gaining limbs. The exception is the summoner's eidolon.

The rules basically assume you have two arms, if you gain more, they can do arm things, but they cannot give you additional attacks. However, the specifically said that if a race has more than 2, then they have as many additional off-hand attacks as necessary. This of course is so the bestiary doesn't go bonkers with all those...

Even the argument on off hands is kinda null in void. Flat from the core rule book

Two Weapon Fighting

Two Weapon Fighting wrote:

See FAQ at right for more information.

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.

Table: Two-weapon Fighting Penalties summarizes the interaction of all these factors.

As per core rule book, it doesn't matter one whit if you had infinite off hands. You get one extra attack if you wield a second weapon. Not a third, fourth or fifth. Just the second.
exactly, but if you have 4 swords, you're no longer two-weapon fighting. you're multiweapon fighting. As has been mentioned the book assumes you have 2 hands. any language is confined to this restriction and thus any case where you have more than 2 hands, do not apply under normal rules....

As per multi weapon fighting, its already been shown in here that it does not explicitly give extra attacks. A lot of assumptions are being tossed around about it giving extra attacks because it allows for plural off hands despite the fact that you can have plural off hands without using additional attacks.

Until that is thoroughly dealt with, their is no basis beyond the bestiary to even surmise that you get extra attacks for extra limbs.


Bandw2 wrote:

I didn't say anywhere I was attacking with hands, his hands are FULL. or cut off, or otherwise unusable, you have no free hands for any purpose. you still have a main hand and a off-hand attack if you attempt a TWF with weird weapons.

anyway this doesn't change the fact that you do not need to select a weapon for any given hand until you roll the attack for that hand.

In which case, just holding things doesn't actually consume your metaphysical hands in the first place and thus would be rendered moot for the point of this argument.

251 to 300 of 405 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Monk, Is there any reason for it All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.