Questions:
Q1: With the Multiweapon Fighting feat and the Improved Two-Weapon Fighting feat (assuming I have four arms, all wielding a weapon and a +6 BAB) how many attacks do I get? 6 (arm 1 + arm 1 iterative + arm 2 + arm 2 iterative +arm 3 + arm 4) or 8 (2 from each arm)?
Q2: If the answer is 6 attacks, then are there any reasonable rules for something like Improved Multiweapon Fighting and the like?
Q3: I am a four armed brawler (per se). Using brawler's flurry would I get Two-Weapon Fighting or Multiweapon Fighting?
Semi-Off Topic Q: Anyone got a "balanced" 4-armed race (homebrew or otherwise)?
1) 5. Improved two-weapon fighting is for two weapons (the clue is in the name). By a strict reading of the rules, you don't even qualify for Improved two-weapon fighting, since if you have 3 or more arms, you can't take two-weapon fighting (since it is replaced by multiweapon fighting for creatures with 3 or more arms), and multiweapon fighting isn't a prerequisite for improved two-weapon fighting. Your GM might be nice, though. Personally, I wouldn't allow it. If he does, however, the answer is still 5, since you're not using two-weapons (and if you are, the answer is 4).
2) N/A.
3) Two-weapon fighting, since that's what the class feature gives. Your GM might be nice (I would be) and since two-weapon fighting is replaced by multiweapon fighting for your character, allow it to replace the benefits in the class feature. Still won't help with improved and greater two-weapon fighting, though.
Take a look at the Kasatha.
1) 5. Improved two-weapon fighting is for two weapons (the clue is in the name). By a strict reading of the rules, you don't even qualify for Improved two-weapon fighting, since if you have 3 or more arms, you can't take two-weapon fighting (since it is replaced by multiweapon fighting for creatures with 3 or more arms), and multiweapon fighting isn't a prerequisite for improved two-weapon fighting. Your GM might be nice, though. Personally, I wouldn't allow it. If he does, however, the answer is still 5, since you're not using two-weapons (and if you are, the answer is 4).
2) N/A.
3) Two-weapon fighting, since that's what the class feature gives. Your GM might be nice (I would be) and since two-weapon fighting is replaced by multiweapon fighting for your character, allow it to replace the benefits in the class feature. Still won't help with improved and greater two-weapon fighting, though.
Take a look at the Kasatha.
Here's Multiweapon Fighting:
Multiweapon Fighting
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.
Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms.
To me, this reads as "This acts exactly like TWF (including as a prereq) and whenever you would get TWF you instead get this."
Is that a wrong interpretation?
The real bottom line is that PCs with > 2 arms (particularly naturally) are a grey area that the rules don't sufficiently cover because the rules were generally drafted with the expectation of using a standard, humanoid race. It's really something that should be discussed and hashed out with the GM prior to deciding on a character concept. Expect much table variation. We can all give you advice on how we'd handle it or how we think the rules interact, but nothing is particularly clear at this point.
And no, there really isn't a "balanced" four armed race, in comparison to the more standard races. Having four arms is a rather significant advantage. YMMV.
Some people will say MWF stands in for TWF in all aspects. So you qualify for ITWF (but that only gives you one extra off-hand attack, not one each limb). Some say MWF is not TWF, so you do not qualify for things with TWF as a prereq. Some of that group then also say you wouldn't even be able to ever take TWF because you only qualify for MWF.
I fall in the former camp (because I see no reason to not let MWF serve as a prereq). But there's no real reason to take ITWF (often even for devoted TWFers) because you much less frequently hit with the -10 iterative (let alone the -12 for T/MWF). Better to spend the feat elsewhere. Take Double Slice and get four attacks at -2 with full STR and one more at -7 and be perfectly happy.
I agree with fretgod.
Except where I don't.
But that's okay.
I agree with fretgod.
Except where I don't.
But that's okay.
Most of this seems reasonable. The rest is pretty silly, though. Everyone should probably disregard the silly stuff.
To each his or her own.
ITWF is a dead feat if you want to attack with more than 2 arms.
What he said