So 11th level fighter:
BAB +11/+6/+1,
one off hand TWF +9/+9/+4/-1,
I/GTWF +9/+9/+4/+4/-1/-1
11th level fighter with four arms
BAB +11/+6/+1
Three off hands MWF +9/+9/+9/+9/+4/-1
I/GTWF +9/+9/+9/+9/+4/+4/-1/-1
Since you cannot take "extra attacks," the argument is that you just take the first six attacks, at the higher bonus, and ignore the remaining attacks.
(Just to note: I disagree with this argument. Also, as it is not my argument, I might not have it correct.)
Edit: Well, never mind. Stabbity answered while I was typing.
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.
... And this kids is why you don't try thinking about a more advanced character concept after 4 hours of sleep in 36 hours after a break from TTRPGs! (not Grey's response, my question leading up to it).
|
@Nevan: I assume you skipped the rest of the thread?
A standard 4-armed creature has 4 attacks at full BAB (if desired): Main-hand and 3 off-hands. This can be seen in the race creation rules (ARG), as well as looking at a couple creatures that have multi-weapon fighting on the basis of having 3+ hands. There is nothing to indicate this is a rule specific to creatures built via the ARG, but also nothing to indicate it isn't. (So it's purely a judgement call, but for the sake of argument let's assume that the call-out to off-hands is not specific to naturally 4-armed creatures.)
Vestigial arms says no extra attacks which might typically indicate that you do not get those off-hands (what no extra attacks means is not defined, but this is a reasonable assumption). However, the FAQ says that "no extra attacks" actually means merely "no more than you could have made before", which is different from not getting extra off-hands. This means you have those off-hands, but can't actually use them to make a greater quantity of attacks than before. However, you can give up another attack that you could have made to take those attacks, or use them to wield two 2-handers (one still only gets half strength, but it's for bragging rights).
So in short, you do have a higher BAB attack, but aren't allowed to use it if doing so would mean that you are taking more attacks than you could have without it. If you don't have iteratives, this is a (mostly) meaningless distinction (aside from dual two-handers). Once you get iteratives you can give them up to take those higher BAB attacks since now you have a greater quantity available than the standard 2. Also, if you had a natural attack not attached to your arms, such as a bite, you could give that up for the other off-hand attack as well. (Going from main/off/bite to main/off/off; same attack quantity, different arrangement.) In other words, remove your vestigial arms and determine the most attacks you could possibly make. Now just make sure you don't make more than that number and have at.
Note that actually having the two-weapon fighting or multi-weapon fighting feats is irrelevant since they just reduce penalties rather than grant additional attacks. It's not very effective to do the swap-up without multi-weapon fighting, though.
The only safe conclusion that can be made from this thread is that the legality or illegality of this cannot be determined with 100% certainty as any possible ruling requires leaning on unwritten rules, which is not a solid basis for a ruling.
|
|
The example they use has no iterative attacks or natural attacks and therefor can only take 2 attacks, which means their extra off-hands (if any) would be irrelevant. The highlighted statement is true for their example without contradicting my assertions. Had they used an example with iterative attacks we would have conclusive evidence of whether my interpretation is correct, but they did not.
You cannot pull a statement out of context to use it as a rule for other contexts.
The first highlighted statement likewise supports my claims.
|
|
Again, you're reading it very differently from me.
It doesn't say "you can't make attacks you wouldn't have without the discovery", it says "you can't make more attacks than you would be able to make without the discovery". These are different things. The latter means you have the attack, but cannot use it if it would mean having a greater total quantity than before. If this weren't the case then their example with Tentacle would be invalid.
So, IMO, you're reading the FAQ to say more than it does to support your position.
|
|
Wait, so you are saying you make the same amount of attacks, but you first calculate the bonuses, as if you had more attacks, then you reduce by the appropriate number, removing the attacks with the lowest bonuses first?
Is this how you are saying this works?
Something like that. Though technically it's no so much remove lowest first as stopping when you run out of the amount you're allowed, but the end result is the same.
1) Declare Full Attack.
2) Ignore all but 2 arms (and anything they're holding or natural weapons you added to them), calculate how many attacks you could make.
3) Add arms back in, calculate what your full-attack would look like without the "no extra attacks" limitation.
4) Starting making the full attack you determined in step 3 in any valid order, but stop once you've made a number of attacks equal to what you had in step 2.
This guarantees that you don't gain "more attacks than you could make without the discovery". And matches with the results in the FAQ.
(Note: Add ignore tentacle to step 2, and add tentacle back in step 3 if you have that discovery.)
|
So, you see it as an add, then subtract, as far as how they function.
I see it functioning as if you never added, and never subtracted.
My stance, seems to handle the situation simply, whilst yours seems to create a complicated situation, that I don't see it as RAI, and still find the interpretation of RAW to be, shaky.
I don't support the "less than before" stance that some have, but I have hard time with the idea of working around reducing extra attacks, that you never gain.
|
|
And if I knew for certain whether it was meant to be +, then -, or simply never add at all, then I wouldn't have posted this thread. However, whether meant to be or not, the way the FAQ is written indicates that it's + then -.
Either way is largely irrelevant since I'm unlikely to ever play a character with the discovery, nor is anyone in my group likely to do so. I was simply hoping for something more productive than "you're wrong because <reason that contradicts FAQ> or <reason that relies on unwritten rules>".
The best arguments I've seen merely leave the situation in a stalemate. Given a stalemate, I rule in the more interesting direction. Most others seem to rule in the more restrictive direction. Either approach is fine if consistently applied, but neither actually break the stalemate for cross-table purposes.
Thing is, neither are you...