|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So it's clear that vestigial arms cannot grant you additional attacks. That's fine. But what about moving your attacks up the BAB ladder?
Take a lvl 11 fighter [mutation warrior] with TWFing, Improved TWFing, Greater TWFing, amd Vestigial Armsx2. Since he has 3 or more hands, TWFing is replaced by multi-weapon fighting. Doesn't really matter, can't get extra attacks, right? But what about this:
Normal TWFING: +9/+9/+4/+4/-1/-1
Multi-Weapon (vestigial armsx2): +9/+9/+9/+9/+4/+4
Multi-Weapon (natural 4-arm race, no vestigial; for comparison): +9/+9/+9/+9/+4/+4/-1/-1
My question is: Is the entry above for multi-weapon fighting (vestigial) valid? It's not gaining extra attacks compared to the normal TWFing routine (6=6), but it is using the arms to move the attack bonuses up to a higher to-hit. Of course, one of those attacks converts from main-hand to off-hand, resulting in a loss of damage, but that might well be worth it (esp. with double-slice).
I have already read in other threads that if you had claw/claw/bite/unarmed/unarmed you could convert that to claw/claw/bite/dagger/dagger with vestigial arms since that isn't more attacks than normal, so I'm leaning towards this being a valid usage, but I think it really comes down to whether Vestigial Arms is merely limiting extra attacks or if it actually limits having extra off-hands and this wasn't stated in the discovery itself. I'm guessing that RAI is the latter (no extra off-hands rather than merely no extra attacks), but currently available info states the former.
TWF isn't replaced by multi-weapon fighting for the fighter.
|
|
Your extra arms are all off-hand, as per the Multiweapon Fighting:
Benefit: Penalties for fighting with multiple weapons are reduced by –2 with the primary hand and by –6 with off hands.
Note the singular form of "hand" rather than plural.
There is no attack bonus benefit to having the extra arms because of the specific wording of Vestigal Arm (as you already quoted) which does not allow you to gain extra attacks from the arms.
Your extra arms could hold weapons of different material or magic bonuses, two of them could hold a bow while the others hold swords, alchemist flasks, and picnic baskets. You could be quite versatile. But you would not be more deadly, toe-to-toe, than a fighter with two arms based solely on the number of melee weapons you can swing in the same round.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The arms can not give extra attacks in any form. You also do no get higher bonuses just for having the arms. They are a non-factor, since they can't be used to get extra attacks.
Basically since those arms can't get you extra attacks, just normal arms would, you make the attacks as if those arms did not exist. They do not qualify for MWF. MWF is for limbs that actually factor into giving you extra attacks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The arms can not give extra attacks in any form. You also do no get higher bonuses just for having the arms. They are a non-factor, since they can't be used to get extra attacks.
Basically since those arms can't get you extra attacks, just normal arms would, you make the attacks as if those arms did not exist. They do not qualify for MWF. MWF is for limbs that actually factor into giving you extra attacks.
This. For MWF, you'd need arms that DO grant extra attacks. Vestigial arms don't cut it.
|
|
@baradakas + wraithstrike: It does not say you do not get any benefit to attacking from having extra arms, just that you cannot gain extra attacks from them. The example I posted does not have more attacks, just better ones.
I agree that this is probably not RAI, which is why I made this post: to serve as an anchor point for official word (if any).
MWF is for limbs that actually factor into giving you extra attacks.
That may be the intent w/r/t vestigial arms, but it is not how it is written at all. Or are you arguing that because vestigial arms does not grant extra attacks, it also does not grant extra hands? It says nothing of the sort though, hence my question.
I've already read several old threads on the issue that cover many corner cases. The one I posted was not covered and, with what material I can see, is valid. I don't necessarily think it should be valid, but it seems to be.
To be even more clear: I'm aware that RAI would be that this is not valid. I'm asking for RAW so that there is a basis for clarification.
|
|
(Dang, passed my edit window..) Here's a more clear way to phrase questions whose answers would resolve this issue:
Does the line "The arm does not give the alchemist any extra attacks" also mean that the arm does not grant an additional off-hand?
If the answer to the above is "yes", then that means that you cannot use this discovery to have more than 2 attacks at any given BAB tier for manufactured weapons, regardless of the total number of attacks you make. That limits the fighter to +9/+9/+4/+4/-1/-1, as normal.
An interesting follow-up would be whether polymorphing into something with 4+ arms grants additional off-hands, but that's a different topic entirely.
Assuming that the arms do grant extra off-hands, but not extra attacks, does this mean that I could give up my lower BAB attacks to instead make more off-hand attacks at full BAB?
If the answer to this is yes, then the +9/+9/+9/+9/+4/+4 routine is valid for the example fighter. However, if the answer to this question is no, then the example fighter is still stuck at +9/+9/+4/+4/-1/-1 (the normal routine).
If the arms do not grant extra off-hands, does that mean that you could not use the arms to attack with both a two-handed weapon and a light weapon as part of two-weapon fighting?
Not actually part of my initial question, but I remembered that I've seen similar things assumed to be acceptable, but there was a FAQ saying that two-hander + unarmed strike wasn't allowed due to only having two "hands" (even when using kicks), so if the vestigial arms do not grant extra off-hands then they presumably also would not be able to do two-hander + light due to lack of "hands" rather than lack of hands.
To call back to the polymorph thing, there may be shenanigans where you can't normally attack with a two-hander and unarmed strike pair via two-weapon fighting, but could if you polymorphed into something with 4 arms (even if you didn't use the two extra arms at all). Unless it is ruled that it doesn't give you extra off-hands either.
Does the line "The arm does not give the alchemist any extra attacks" also mean that the arm does not grant an additional off-hand?
It grants an off hand NOT an extra additional off-hand. If it did, it would grant you an additional attack (which we know it doesn't. What does this mean? You now have a pool of off hands and you can pick one to make your off hand attack with.
If the arms do not grant extra off-hands, does that mean that you could not use the arms to attack with both a two-handed weapon and a light weapon as part of two-weapon fighting?
Correct. Look at the two handed weapon and armor spikes TWF FAQ. You are allowed only two 'hands of effort'. Vestigial arms do not add 'hands of effort', so it doesn't alter how normal combat goes. It ONLY gives you more options on how you use those two 'hands of effort'.
Now don't try to find 'hands of effort' as they don't actually exist in the rule, they are just the unwritten rules the DEV's use to make rules decisions. :P
|
|
You see, there's nothing in the rules that says "no extra attacks" means "no off-hands". And its precisely because there's no precedent. This, and the Tentacle discovery, represent the first and only times something in the rules granted an attack vector with the explicit restriction of not gaining an *extra* attack.
So you can contend that "no extra attacks" means "no extra off-hands" all you want, but unless FAQ'd/errata'd there is no such rule. Especially since other sources of gaining extra arms, to my knowledge, are assumed to grant such off-hands.
EDIT: This may also mean we simply have to agree to disagree on that point.
PS: I find it silly and frustrating when FAQs add entire new rules constructs just to avoid calling it errata.
|
|
I really wish they wouldn't have gone with the wording they did and just say that the arms suck and can only hold/draw items (or pass, as a free action). It would've made life way simpler since supposedly that's what they wanted them to do anyway.
As it is, it's hard to draw any conclusions about because there is no precedent for what "no extra attack" means when given something that should normally grant the means for an extra attack and can, in all other ways than "extra", grant the ability to attack. The only hard rule you can possibly draw without clarification is that your quantity of attacks cannot be more than you would have been able to reach without them. And the quantity is not "extra" with my example.
|
|
Look at the 6th level Fighter I posited. Try to find a way for him to get his second attack at full BAB without gaining an extra attack. It can't be done*. The only way to acquire more attacks at full attack bonus is to get more attacks, period.**
In your suggestion, there's no real 'loss' of an attack. You're voluntarily not making attacks, but mechanically there's no reason why the attacks aren't available.
*Okay, it can in Mythic, but Mythic is cheating.
**Natural attacks are ignored here because they operate on an entirely different paradigm
There's a perfect mechanical reason they're not available: You ran out of attacks. The most you could make was X, you made X, now you're done.
Either way you rule it, it makes no sense. Either (A) you have arms that work perfectly well, just as well as your normal arms, but for some reason you aren't able to attack as well as *anything* else with 4-arms, including creatures polymorphed into that state for minutes at a time or (B) you can make more attacks at high BAB because having the lower ones meant you had more attacks you could make before "extra" meant something.
Like I said, if they wanted to avoid these shenanigans they should've just blocked the arms from making attacks at all. As it stands there is no way to make them make sense within existing rules constructs.
I suppose I'm just forcing the issue because I want Paizo to stop messing around with rules without thinking about whether they make any sense whatsoever. And they probably can't care because they don't have time to actually think about these things given publishing schedules, but still.
StabbittyDoom, look at it this way. You are wearing a dwarven boulder helmet, Barbazu beard, 2 bladeboots, spiked armor and 2 sea knives. You are holding 2 shortswords. You NOW have 9 weapons you can attack with. These don't in any way increase your number of attacks or off hands.
Now you have a vestigial arm. What does it do now? It makes you able to now attack with 10 weapons instead of 9.
As to "no precedent for what "no extra attack" means", it's quite easy. TWF: "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon." So what happens when you remove the extra attack? You can wield a second weapon... that's it.
Now, lets look at MWF: "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." Now we know vestigial arms don't add attacks, so they don't count as it's talking about attacks with offhands (and you'd need an attack to make an offhand attack).
You see, there's nothing in the rules that says "no extra attacks" means "no off-hands". And its precisely because there's no precedent. This, and the Tentacle discovery, represent the first and only times something in the rules granted an attack vector with the explicit restriction of not gaining an *extra* attack.
So you can contend that "no extra attacks" means "no extra off-hands" all you want, but unless FAQ'd/errata'd there is no such rule. Especially since other sources of gaining extra arms, to my knowledge, are assumed to grant such off-hands.
EDIT: This may also mean we simply have to agree to disagree on that point.
PS: I find it silly and frustrating when FAQs add entire new rules constructs just to avoid calling it errata.
There is also no rule saying that something that does not grant an attack counts as an extra off-hand.
Anyway I am done here. Do what you want in your games, if you have the GM, but you have provided nothing to show RAW or RAI supports you. You don't have to convince us if you are a player. You do have to convince the GM. Just show him this thread.
|
|
StabbittyDoom, look at it this way. You are wearing a dwarven boulder helmet, Barbazu beard, 2 bladeboots, spiked armor and 2 sea knives. You are holding 2 shortswords. You NOW have 9 weapons you can attack with. These don't in any way increase your number of attacks or off hands.
Now you have a vestigial arm. What does it do now? It makes you able to now attack with 10 weapons instead of 9.
As to "no precedent for what "no extra attack" means", it's quite easy. TWF: "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon." So what happens when you remove the extra attack? You can wield a second weapon... that's it.
Now, lets look at MWF: "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." Now we know vestigial arms don't add attacks, so they don't count as it's talking about attacks with offhands (and you'd need an attack to make an offhand attack).
Problem is, there's precedent that a creature with 2 arms has only 1 off-hand. There's also precedent that any creature with more than 2 arms has a number of off-hands equal to Arms-1. Your entire first paragraph has absolutely nothing to do with anything, really.
The crux of the issue with the rest of your writing is that it makes the assumption about what "no extra attack" means. The only official word I've seen is that it means you can't make more attacks than you could if you didn't have those arms. That is true with the example I gave. Your text refers to an attack you always have, btw, the rules are just.. not well written in core.
Is your interpretation reasonable? Sure. It creates other weird rules issues, but there's no way to avoid that at this point. It's also, IMO, extraordinarily gamist. Like, all the way to that end of the pendulum. No attempt at balance with verisimilitude whatsoever.
PS: Is anyone else bothered by the fact that they chose to define "hands" in two different ways within the same context? Or the fact that the prime reasonable interpretation of Vestigial Arms means you could shapeshift into yourself and suddenly gain more attacks?
|
|
Anyway I am done here. Do what you want in your games, if you have the GM, but you have provided nothing to show RAW or RAI supports you. You don't have to convince us if you are a player. You do have to convince the GM. Just show him this thread.
I am the GM. Even when I'm not GMing, I'm effectively the GM because the person GMing explicitly asks me to assist with rules knowledge.
Here's some extra evidence for you:
The tentacle does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round, though he can use it to make a tentacle attack (1d4 damage for a Medium alchemist, 1d3 damage for a Small one) with the grab ability
For example, if you're low-level alchemist who uses two-weapon fighting, you can normally make two attacks per round (one with each weapon). If you take the tentacle discovery, on your turn you can make
* two weapon attacks but no tentacle attack,
* a weapon attack with your left hand plus a secondary tentacle attack, or
* a weapon attack with your right hand plus a secondary tentacle attack.
At no time can you make a left hand weapon attack, a right hand weapon attack, and a tentacle attack on the same turn because the tentacle discovery says it "does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round." This language is calling out that the tentacle is not a standard natural weapon and doesn't follow the standard rules for using natural weapons (which would normally allow you to make the natural weapon attack in addition to your other attacks).
Tentacle uses identical wording, and (by FAQ) can give up a manufactured attack, even a TWFing one, to gain its natural attack. In fact, it must give up another available attack (whether manufactured or natural) to be made at all.
EDIT: Actually, the very first line of the FAQ seems to define it well enough...
It means "extra," as in "more than you would be able to make if you didn't have that discovery."
|
|
Actually, I think when re-reading the FAQ that my example actually *is* valid by current FAQ.
It means "extra," as in "more than you would be able to make if you didn't have that discovery."
For example, if you're low-level alchemist who uses two-weapon fighting, you can normally make two attacks per round (one with each weapon). If you take the tentacle discovery, on your turn you can make
* two weapon attacks but no tentacle attack,
* a weapon attack with your left hand plus a secondary tentacle attack, or
* a weapon attack with your right hand plus a secondary tentacle attack.
At no time can you make a left hand weapon attack, a right hand weapon attack, and a tentacle attack on the same turn because the tentacle discovery says it "does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round." This language is calling out that the tentacle is not a standard natural weapon and doesn't follow the standard rules for using natural weapons (which would normally allow you to make the natural weapon attack in addition to your other attacks).Likewise, if you instead took the vestigial arm discovery and put a weapon in that arm's hand, on your turn you can make
* a weapon attack with your left hand and one with your right hand,
* a weapon attack with your right hand and one with your vestigial arm, or
* a weapon attack with your left hand and one with your vestigial arm,
At no time can you make a left hand weapon attack, a right hand weapon attack, and a vestigial hand weapon attack on the same turn because the vestigial arm discovery says it "does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round."
The exact same restrictions would apply if your race had claws or you had some other ability to add claws to your limbs: the text of both discoveries says they do not give you any extra attacks per round, whether used as natural weapons, wielding manufactured weapons, or adding natural weapons to a limb that didn't originally have natural weapons.Remember that these two discoveries do not have any level requirements, and therefore are not especially powerful; permanently adding additional attacks per round is beyond the scope of a discovery available to 2nd-level alchemists.
This means that, in the context of a BAB+5 or less character with TWFing, you can make any combination of 2 attacks if you have these discoveries, even if it's a wonky one that matches with nothing else. Now, they don't extend this to higher BABs or more TWFing feats, so they may not have intended it to extend to that, but as written it does.
EDIT/PS: I'm really sorry if I'm irritating anyone with this. It's been a long week that has included a car wreck. This is the kind of thing I think about when stressed, so if I come off as stubborn or irritable I apologize.
Ok StabbittyDoom. One off hand gets you an extra attack in two weapon fighting. Multiweapon fighting gets you a number of extra attacks equal to the number of offhands. Vestigial arms don't give extra attacks. Taking those in, you should understand why no attack means it doesn't could for multiweapon fighting where the normal IS adding attacks.
Second, 'hands of effort' is explained in the spiked armor FAQ as I already explained. It's 'unwritten rules' so of course it's not written in the core. It's not written anywhere.
Third, the actual rules don't have to have anything to do with your verisimilitude. It's a mutable viewpoint that's different for each person. Some people find the carry limits too much for their verisimilitude. That doesn't alter the rule of change the fact that we ARE playing a game. If hands hits you as gamist, don't think too hard about HP.
|
|
Ok StabbittyDoom. One off hand gets you an extra attack in two weapon fighting. Multiweapon fighting gets you a number of extra attacks equal to the number of offhands. Vestigial arms don't give extra attacks. Taking those in, you should understand why no attack means it doesn't could for multiweapon fighting where the normal IS adding attacks.
Second, 'hands of effort' is explained in the spiked armor FAQ as I already explained. It's 'unwritten rules' so of course it's not written in the core. It's not written anywhere.
Third, the actual rules don't have to have anything to do with your verisimilitude. It's a mutable viewpoint that's different for each person. Some people find the carry limits too much for their verisimilitude. That doesn't alter the rule of change the fact that we ARE playing a game. If hands hits you as gamist, don't think too hard about HP.
Multi-weapon fighting and two-weapon fighting do not give you extra attacks or off-hands. Having arms does. Those feats just reduce penalties.
I understand the "hands of effort" concept, I'm just not sure how many "hands of effort" I actually have here. As near as I can tell, with 4 arms, I have 4 hands of effort (i.e. the default for 4-armed creatures) and neither the discovery nor the FAQ contradicts that. However, the FAQ does clarify what extra attacks means in the context of this Discovery, and that clarification means I *could* use MWFing to bring the attacks up to a higher BAB, at least as it is currently written. May not be meant to, but that's why I bring it up.
Multi-weapon fighting and two-weapon fighting do not give you extra attacks or off-hands. Having arms does. Those feats just reduce penalties.
Note that's exactly what I said. TWF (not the feat) gives an extra attack for having an off hand. MWF gives an extra attack for each extra arm. Vestigial DOES NOT ADD ATTACKS where arms used for TWF and MWF does. Note that EVERY instance of WTF and MWF is not the feat but the actual section on fighting with multiple limbs. this is where the "MWFing to bring the attacks up to a higher BAB" fails.
I understand the "hands of effort" concept, I'm just not sure how many "hands of effort" I actually have here. As near as I can tell, with 4 arms, I have 4 hands of effort (i.e. the default for 4-armed creatures) and neither the discovery nor the FAQ contradicts that. However, the FAQ does clarify what extra attacks means in the context of this Discovery, and that clarification means I *could* use MWFing to bring the attacks up to a higher BAB, at least as it is currently written. May not be meant to, but that's why I bring it up.
A creature has as many 'hands of effort' as they naturally have arms. Unless you're playing a Kasatha that number is 2. Them telling you that vestigial limbs adds no attacks is them telling you that number didn't change.
|
|
RAW, and I feel RAI, there is absolutely 0 connection between number of arms and number of attacks. Ive had this argument before, and the only Dev response on the matter, with regards to races that have multiple arms, is that the rules arent designed with them in mind. The mutli-weapon fighting feat doesnt grant attacks, it only reduces penalities if by some means you gain them (There is a missing rule that converts the two-weapon fighting combat rule to mutli-weapon fighting, and the dev comment pretty much confirms this is intended and not going to be addressed.)
Multi-weapon fighting and two-weapon fighting do not give you extra attacks or off-hands. Having arms does. Those feats just reduce penalties.I understand the "hands of effort" concept, I'm just not sure how many "hands of effort" I actually have here. As near as I can tell, with 4 arms, I have 4 hands of effort (i.e. the default for 4-armed creatures) and neither the discovery nor the FAQ contradicts that. However, the FAQ does clarify what extra attacks means in the context of this Discovery, and that clarification means I *could* use MWFing to bring the attacks up to a higher BAB, at least as it is currently written. May not be meant to, but that's why I bring it up.
So the RAW is that the RAW doesn't exist because the devs don't care about 4 arms, but are willing to make a rule that grants 4 arms to PCs without addressing how it actually works?
I'm not exactly impressed :(
You know what, nevermind. Obviously you guys are convinced that the probable RAI is completely RAW despite thin evidence and can't understand that I *AGREE* with you and simply want real evidence.
So I guess I'm done too.
I'm curious. What did you think you were bringing up that hasn't been addressed in a dozen other threads?
We have RAI from both FAQ's. The fact is that the RAW matches it. I don't particularly LIKE the 'hands of effort' issue, in fact I loathe it, but I understand it. The reason you're getting so much pushback is that this is really a case of 1 + 1 = 2. No extra attacks + TWF rules rules out MWF for vestigial arms. The spiked armor FAQ makes every PC other than Kasatha have 2 hands of effort. In the very best light, you might be able to take the MWF feat on a technicality, however it would offer nothing as you don't many multiple offhands at once to make use of it.
I've also been in threads with DEV's and I've seen some say that a 4 armed creature IS meant to get 4 attacks. Like Calth said though, they also said that PC's aren't meant to get more than 2. That statement really confuses me given the fact that was AFTER they made the Kasatha.
|
|
I'm curious. What did you think you were bringing up that hasn't been addressed in a dozen other threads?You know what, nevermind. Obviously you guys are convinced that the probable RAI is completely RAW despite thin evidence and can't understand that I *AGREE* with you and simply want real evidence.
So I guess I'm done too.
The dozen other threads lead to a FAQ with a very simple answer: It means "extra," as in "more than you would be able to make if you didn't have that discovery."
This defined the term extra in this context as "more". Not "attacks of the same quality". Not "you don't gain off-hands". Just "more than if you didn't have the discovery". My example in the original post does not gain more attacks than it would have without the discovery, so by that FAQ it is perfectly valid. It also qualifies for Multi-Weapon Fighting since it possesses 3+ hands. Did they mean 3+ "hands"? (Or will they retcon that they did?) Maybe. But that needs to be clarified since the concept of "hands" was itself invented by a FAQ rather than being a rule.
My entire point in this thread is that I feel like the devs left a gap here that is technically RAW allowed but not in line with what I think they wanted to allow.
Every poster here seems to be redefining what "extra" means in various ways, but the FAQ defines it very clearly and not at all in the same way as the other posters define it.
"No extra attacks" does not mean no extra off-hands. It means precisely "no more attacks than you would be able to make if you didn't have that discovery". It means that because no rule defines what it means, but the FAQ did so to clarify. The example does not make more attacks than if it didn't have a discovery, so therefor it does not violate the clause that states that you cannot gain extra attacks.
I assume that having 3+ arms grants more off-hands precisely because multi-weapon fighting cannot make sense without it, and there is nothing that contradicts that. Since there is no real support for such things it could well be that the devs would like to retcon that as well, but this (again) requires a FAQ. Also, here is a paizo-published creature that requires that assumption in order for it to work: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/undead/skeleton-medium/sk eleton-four-armed-mudra ; admittedly, they make mistakes, but it's the only one I could find that uses the feat instead of making up a new rule entirely.
What does "extra off-hand" mean to you?
|
|
What does "extra off-hand" mean to you?
Barring the restrictions of vestigial arms: It means, for example, being able to attack with both a two-hander (with damage bonus) and a light manufactured weapon as a TWFing pair. Or to take multi-weapon fighting and perform a main/off/off attack retinue. Both of which I would expect to see a naturally 3-armed creature to do.
The latter of the above two examples would not be possible in this case (at least at BAB of less than 6) due to the no extra attacks clause, but nothing in FAQ or rules contradicts the former as an option. Additionally, once higher BAB grants extra attacks, you could use an extra off-hand to perform a main/off/off sequence without gaining more attacks than you would have had with the normal main and off-hand pair.
This may sound odd, but so does giving up a manufactured attack from TWFing to take a natural attack, but that's exactly the example the FAQ gives for how it works for Tentacle, which uses the same wording. In this case I'm not even swapping manufactured for natural, it's manufactured for manufactured.
Did you notice how everything you said involved "attacks?"
|
|
Did you notice how everything you said involved "attacks?"
Did you notice how that didn't matter, because none of it violated the definition of "extra" explicitly given by the FAQ?
Did you think of how that was inevitable since off-hand is only defined in the context of attacking?
Did you think that maybe asking a question then using the answer to create a snarky response rather than respond to it in a meaningful way might come off as rude?
A standard PC has a primary hand and an off hand. They are used for making attacks. "No extra attacks" means no extra primary or off hands because that is what you use to make attacks.
|
|
A standard PC has a primary hand and an off hand. They are used for making attacks. "No extra attacks" means no extra primary or off hands because that is what you use to make attacks.
That is not how "extra" was defined in the FAQ for the abilities in question. The entire definition is attack quantity, not attack source. Is what you list how it works for other contexts? Perhaps. Heck, I'll even give it a "most likely". But the FAQ was about *this exact context*</Archer>, and as such overrides that standard definition within that context.
If the FAQ was intended to be about attack source then it failed utterly because its given example was to sacrifice an attack from one source to take an attack from another. And it was declared valid because the total quantity of attacks had not increased. It sacrificed an off-hand attack for a natural attack, something not valid in any other rules context.
I'm not throwing out other context just because, here. I'm throwing it out because the FAQ redefines how things work for the purpose of Vestigial Arm and Tentacle, and only for those two things. Any attacks normally gained from the limbs in question are only gained if you give up an attack you would have normally received from another source. That's what the FAQ, as written, means. And outside of that, they work as normal for such limbs (e.g. for the 2-hander and shield style previously mentioned).
The best explanation Ive come up with is that while the Devs are fine with creatures with multiple arms having extra attacks, they do not want that to apply to PCs. SKR made a post a long-time ago about bestiary design where he pretty much states that monsters are allowed to break the rules in cool ways as long as you arent doing it to abuse your players.We have RAI from both FAQ's. The fact is that the RAW matches it. I don't particularly LIKE the 'hands of effort' issue, in fact I loathe it, but I understand it. The reason you're getting so much pushback is that this is really a case of 1 + 1 = 2. No extra attacks + TWF rules rules out MWF for vestigial arms. The spiked armor FAQ makes every PC other than Kasatha have 2 hands of effort. In the very best light, you might be able to take the MWF feat on a technicality, however it would offer nothing as you don't many multiple offhands at once to make use of it.
I've also been in threads with DEV's and I've seen some say that a 4 armed creature IS meant to get 4 attacks. Like Calth said though, they also said that PC's aren't meant to get more than 2. That statement really confuses me given the fact that was AFTER they made the Kasatha.
My talk was after SKR already left. I think it was James but I'm not 100% sure. It was around the time the Iron Gods AP started. It was pretty much that Kasatha should get 4 attacks with MWF and the improved/greater TWF's should grant a single extra attack. He also said that more or less no one should ever be allow to run them because it was so powerful.
I didn't bother bookmarking it though since DEV posts where ruled unofficial without an FAQ/errata.
You see, there's nothing in the rules that says "no extra attacks" means "no off-hands". And its precisely because there's no precedent. This, and the Tentacle discovery, represent the first and only times something in the rules granted an attack vector with the explicit restriction of not gaining an *extra* attack.
So you can contend that "no extra attacks" means "no extra off-hands" all you want, but unless FAQ'd/errata'd there is no such rule. Especially since other sources of gaining extra arms, to my knowledge, are assumed to grant such off-hands.
EDIT: This may also mean we simply have to agree to disagree on that point.
PS: I find it silly and frustrating when FAQs add entire new rules constructs just to avoid calling it errata.
there is actually, the whole buisness of hands of effort is that a creature with only 2 natural hands of effort, is that they cannot gain anymore.
this is placed to limit the number of times you can add strength to damage, making it hard to get above 1.5 and rarely get it to 2.
this is an "unwritten rule" in as much as "you don't suffocate while breathing oxygen" is, the game assumes things to be known in some occurrences, the devs thought this was one of them.
look up the armor spikes while two-handed FAQ and the alchemist's vestigial arm FAQ. this should clarify the issue.
of course, i will end it with the obligatory, "where the hell does vestigial arms say it adds off-hands? it adds hands, and hand's of effort are only chosen when you decide to attack"
(edit: people seem to think people just always have off-hands, but in reality they're only mentioned in TWF while attacking, and thus only used during this specific time, and are chosen on attack just like every other normal attack. you can probably even swap what weapon you consider your off-hand mid full attack if you've already made a combo)
(double edit: RAW, monsters with more than 2 arms don't gain extra attacks either, this is mentioned no where, beasties just have them written in their stat blocks, another unwritten rule)
The best explanation Ive come up with is that while the Devs are fine with creatures with multiple arms having extra attacks, they do not want that to apply to PCs. SKR made a post a long-time ago about bestiary design where he pretty much states that monsters are allowed to break the rules in cool ways as long as you arent doing it to abuse your players.We have RAI from both FAQ's. The fact is that the RAW matches it. I don't particularly LIKE the 'hands of effort' issue, in fact I loathe it, but I understand it. The reason you're getting so much pushback is that this is really a case of 1 + 1 = 2. No extra attacks + TWF rules rules out MWF for vestigial arms. The spiked armor FAQ makes every PC other than Kasatha have 2 hands of effort. In the very best light, you might be able to take the MWF feat on a technicality, however it would offer nothing as you don't many multiple offhands at once to make use of it.
I've also been in threads with DEV's and I've seen some say that a 4 armed creature IS meant to get 4 attacks. Like Calth said though, they also said that PC's aren't meant to get more than 2. That statement really confuses me given the fact that was AFTER they made the Kasatha.
My talk was after SKR already left. I think it was James but I'm not 100% sure. It was around the time the Iron Gods AP started. It was pretty much that Kasatha should get 4 attacks with MWF and the improved/greater TWF's should grant a single extra attack. He also said that more or less no one should ever be allow to run them because it was so powerful.
I didn't bother bookmarking it though since DEV posts where ruled unofficial without an FAQ/errata.
Okay, so, I'm waayyyy behind here (I don't waltz through this section of the forums very often). And maybe I'm missing something but, hopefully it's not inappropriate to ask here since it's relevant to the topic.
How... Exactly do these 4 arms (Kasatha style) work in PF? Correct me if I'm wrong here but here's how I understand it.
-Without the TWF tree, you get 1 extra attack for your offhand after BAB, at whatever your max BAB is. Having 2 more would net you 3 "offhand" attacks at said BAB.
--Further iteratives from BAB do zilch for these extra attacks.
-MWF feat itself replaces TWF. This apparently gives you access to ITWF/GTWF?
-In any case, any hand can be used for a BAB iterative... Which I always assumed changed which 'hand' (and thus weapon) was your 'dominant' and 'off hand(s)'. (I think this is an old house rule I picked up many years ago, your TWF granted attacks occur on the same BAB count, so no 4 atks with your wounding rapier before the 3 with the vorpal scimitar, for example). More or less a moot point but some things do interact, from what I recall.
... 'M I missin' anything? Kasatha fighters would wind up with 4 bab attacks + 3 offhands + 2 from ITWF/GTWF = 9 total... Same number of attacks Zen Archers make, only with melee. I can see that as powerful, but it requires the ultimately weak "stand there and full attack!" tactic. Which reduces it's effectiveness when the enemy focus-fires on you after they witness you shred their meat shield to strips.
Artemis Moonstar, the only difference in a 4 armed creature is that they have 2 more offhands than normal and that translates into a total of 2 extra off hand attacks. Note that a lot of things that act like twf, like a monks flurry, only work like TWF, so a 4 armed monk using flurry ends up with the same number of attacks as a 2 armed one.
i actuly used a build similar but not to gain more atacks\better bab.
i used it to wield 2 greatsowrds.
with double slice ur off hand attacks get full str bonus for damage.
i also argued that you can pick multi weapon feat with 4 arms. the feat doesn't say you hae to fight with 3 or more arms. only that you HAVE 3 or more arms. and since i did't increase my number of attacks just the weapon wielded( as normaly i don't have enough hands to hold 2 greatsowrds in combat and now i do) only problem i had was wether power attacking with the off hand after double slice get 3 points of damage for every 1 point of atac kpanilty or not since it says both "This bonus to damage is increased by half (+50%) if you are making an attack with a two-handed weapon" and "This bonus to damage is halved (–50%) if you are making an attack with an off-hand weapon " now the question is if the double slice neg the hald str damage of off hand attack. does it actuyl make it not an off hand attack(as the only difrence from main to off ahnd weapon attacks are the panilties for 2 weapon fighting wich are the same with the 2wf feat and it's equvilent. and the hlaf str of off hand wich is not anymoe with double slice.) or since it is named off hand attack even if it is the same as the main hand then power attack panilty still apply. in the end my gm ruled that the off hand get normal 2 extra damage for every 1 panilty reason it both get 50% more for 2 handed and 50% less for off hand.
I am going to have to actually side with Stabbity here. Even when you remove the whole multiattack issue, he has a valid point.
I have a level 10 fighter/2 Alchmist with a tentacle wielding 2 Kukris with the TWF and iTWF feats.
I get 3 attacks at +9/+9/+4/+4/-1. My tentacle attack is at -5 for being a secondary attack which puts it at +4, and according to the FAQ, I can explicity substitute it for the kukri attack that is at -1. Thus my attack routine is now +9/+9/+4/+4/+4 with the last attack being a tentacle.
If it works for the tentacle(which has the exact same extra attack verbage as the extra limb), then there is no reason that you could not take an extra limb with a Kukri in it, and thus you would get the same option to substitute the attack from that limb for any other attack in your routine. Even without the multiattack feat, I could still attack with a -8(using a light weapon) with the second off hand making my attack sequence a +9/+9/+4/+4/+1 instead of a +9/+9/+4/+4/-1.
I've also been in threads with DEV's and I've seen some say that a 4 armed creature IS meant to get 4 attacks. Like Calth said though, they also said that PC's aren't meant to get more than 2. That statement really confuses me given the fact that was AFTER they made the Kasatha.PC aren't intended to use Kasatha, it's a 20RP race with a monstrous trait.
#1 Table 4-1 lists rp races of 11-20 as advanced (same as aasimars and tieflings). 20+ is monstrous. The inclusion of a monstrous trait would be an exception but it doesn't make the race itself monstrous. Even is a monstrous trait bumped it up to a monstrous race see #2.
#2 My copy of the ARG has a chart for how to use creatures of up to rp 40 (pg#217) as PC's. Is your copy missing this?#3 My copy of the people of the stars lists them as a playable races(pg#4).
#4 my bestiary 4 lists stats for PC stats for it.
Adding all these together, REALLY doesn't add up to them not wanting you to play it. Would YOU give out PC stats in multiple places AND call them out as playable if you really didn't want anyone to play them?
Charender, he isn't talking about replacing a weapon attack with a natural attack. That can actually give you a benefit. He's trying to replace a weapon attack with a weapon attack. He's taking one of the multiple attacks from BAB, like the +4 from +9/+9/+4, and turn it into a +9 for +9/+9/+9. The ONLY reason it does something for natural attacks is that it's figured out differently. Natural attack get full BAB or -5(2) based on type no matter how many you get. That's not the case with weapons. Multiple attacks from weapons "because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest." He's trying to take a lower number and swap it for a higher number but that's just not possible.
Check out the combat section in the core book, full round actions, full attack. You numbers MUST go high to low (for those from BAB being high). You must already be at the lower numbers to have the attack you want to swap but can't go back to high.
This is all theorycraft though as I don't think it's even possible to work MWF for vestigial arms to start this out. So there's now multiple reasons this goes nowhere.
|
|
graystone, you can assume we know the core rules here. The crux of the issue is really whether "no extra attacks" means "no extra off-hands". Since "no extra attacks" didn't preclude adding a new natural attack with tentacle, why would it automatically preclude adding new off-hands with vestigial arms? You seem to take that it does as a matter of course, but since there isn't even a rule as to when you gain extra off-hands how can it be considered obvious in either direction? I gave an example of a creature that obvious has multiple off-hands due to taking the MWFing feat, but nothing says it should have them other than having 3+ arms. This is evidence that having 3+ arms is sufficient for extra off-hands.
Even without my example of pulling attacks up to higher BAB, having extra off-hands have uses, like TWFing a 2-hander and a light weapon together, which someone with only one off-hand can't do. This would move no attacks to a different BAB, and no extra attacks, but also require that vestigial arms grants off-hands. Given that we have no rule to deny that than "no extra attacks", which does not automatically mean no off-hands, it seems this would be a valid usage of the arms.
While moving an attack to higher to-hit is definitely suspicious, that's exactly what tentacle does in the example Charender gave. If the tentacle does it, why couldn't something else with the same wording do the same? Especially when they're lumped together as working the same way in the only relevant FAQ?
I've also been in threads with DEV's and I've seen some say that a 4 armed creature IS meant to get 4 attacks. Like Calth said though, they also said that PC's aren't meant to get more than 2. That statement really confuses me given the fact that was AFTER they made the Kasatha.PC aren't intended to use Kasatha, it's a 20RP race with a monstrous trait.#1 Table 4-1 lists rp races of 11-20 as advanced (same as aasimars and tieflings). 20+ is monstrous. The inclusion of a monstrous trait would be an exception but it doesn't make the race itself monstrous. Even is a monstrous trait bumped it up to a monstrous race see #2.
#2 My copy of the ARG has a chart for how to use creatures of up to rp 40 (pg#217) as PC's. Is your copy missing this?
#3 My copy of the people of the stars lists them as a playable races(pg#4).
#4 my bestiary 4 lists stats for PC stats for it.Adding all these together, REALLY doesn't add up to them not wanting you to play it. Would YOU give out PC stats in multiple places AND call them out as playable if you really didn't want anyone to play them?
Charender, he isn't talking about replacing a weapon attack with a natural attack. That can actually give you a benefit. He's trying to replace a weapon attack with a weapon attack. He's taking one of the multiple attacks from BAB, like the +4 from +9/+9/+4, and turn it into a +9 for +9/+9/+9. The ONLY reason it does something for natural attacks is that it's figured out differently. Natural attack get full BAB or -5(2) based on type no matter how many you get. That's not the case with weapons. Multiple attacks from weapons "because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest." He's trying to take a lower number and swap it for a higher number but that's just not possible.
Check out the combat section in the core book, full round actions, full attack. You numbers MUST go high to low (for those from BAB being high). You...
No, if I have a character that has 3 limbs, a weapon in each hand, I get 3 attacks. If all weapons are light, then I make my attacks at -4/-8/-8, that is RAW. If I have 2 weapon fighting(I am currently sidestepping the whole multi-weapon fighting is a monster feat issue ATM), then my attacks would be at -2/-2/-8. The verbage in extra limb and the FAQ say I cannot get an extra attack from the limb, but I can substitute that attack for any other attack I would normally be able to make. So if I have 5 attacks from TWF at -2/-2/-7/-7/-12 and I also have access to another weapon attack on a third limb that is at -8, then according to the FAQ, I can substitute the attack at -8 for the one at -12.
TLDR: I still make my attack as per the core rule from high to low, but I can choose to make an attack with the kukri in my third hand at -8 instead of taking my last iterative at -12.
I remember this horse. Surprised the corpse still has some meat.
Though if I remember right, it claimed you have hands, and you have hands. Oh oh, then you have hands but you definitely lack hands.
Snide comments around my dissatisfaction on this aside, I have to admit with the OP, I have never actually found this explicitly called out, FAQ, errata, dev comments, or otherwise. The closest I've ever found was this which speaks of intent only.
Most of my discrepancy is the same as you OP:
A standard PC has a primary hand and an off hand. They are used for making attacks. "No extra attacks" means no extra primary or off hands because that is what you use to make attacks.
That while this is true, in a lone identity of attacks, nothing is changing, just the size of them.
Making N attacks with two handed weapons isn't more than N attacks with one handed weapons. Or at least, one has to assume N=N or we're all rather buggered.The way we derive this from the armour spikes FAQ is in the idea it sets that our N attacks are better described by M uses of hands. Since for the argument to work, the use of a two handed weapon to attack has to somehow occupy our mercurial concept of an offhand such that we cannot make an attack that uses an actual hand. Thus, we have a divorce of hands (actual hands) and hands (game concept), with the latter being our limiting factor.
So to put it, if I use a two handed weapon (person a) vs up to greater two weapon fighting with one handed weapons (person b) at 11 BAB (deliberately chosen criteria here):
Ma=Mb
Na=/=Nb
We can see this because while the use of armour spikes doesn't break our available N by the rules, it breaks M. Thus, the idea of "you don't get extra attacks is an absolute, and complete misnomer by our gaming terms.
In reality, you get extra hands (the generalistic idea of hands) but not hands (gaming concept). Now, while I appreciate this is fair and balanced, when GM'ing, I would share (and act on) the opinion I am inferring above that this is silly.
NB: I appreciate my comment possible hits RAI but I feel the logic naturally falls out of the FAQ. With all it's irksome implications.
TLDR: I still make my attack as per the core rule from high to low, but I can choose to make an attack with the kukri in my third hand at -8 instead of taking my last iterative at -12.
How can you trade the last iterative if you haven't gotten there yet? 1, 2, 3, 4. Reading them from left to right, how does anything happen to 4 without going through 1-3? The basic combat section doesn't allow higher level attacks after getting to lower level ones.
Even without my example of pulling attacks up to higher BAB, having extra off-hands have uses, like TWFing a 2-hander and a light weapon together, which someone with only one off-hand can't do.
May I suggest a thread on THAT then, just offhands? I think most people are going to get to the BAB swapping and pass this by before getting to any offhand issues.
While moving an attack to higher to-hit is definitely suspicious, that's exactly what tentacle does in the example Charender gave. If the tentacle does it, why couldn't something else with the same wording do the same? Especially when they're lumped together as working the same way in the only relevant FAQ?
Not exactly though. The way natural attacks compared with weapon attacks is fundamentally different. Weapon has multiple attacks because of high BAB. Natural weapon only cares about primary/secondary. That's why making 2 natural weapon attacks uses different bonuses than 2 weapon attacks. THE ONLY REASON that swapping a tentacle changes the numbers when swapped for a weapon attack if this fundamental difference.
For everyone: Please don't think that I actually LIKE how these rules come together or how they explain it. This is just how things are.