|
Okay, so Alchemists can use Vestigial Arm twice and end up with 4 arms on their characters right?
So what if I were to multi-class Fighter and Alchemist and at level 3 be LvL 1 Fighter/ LvL 2 Alchemist and use my discovery to get one arm and get the bonus discovery feat to get the second.
I understand this much.
But heres the part I need to ask about:
When fighting with a two handed weapon in each set of hands, how would I go about using the two-weapon fighting feat?
Would I need it for this case?
And if so would it just be the standard -4/-4 penalty?
Also I sheepishly ask; are there any feats to increase attack rolls at the cost of anything else e.g. AC?
|
Okay, so Alchemists can use Vestigial Arm twice and end up with 4 arms on their characters right?
So what if I were to multi-class Fighter and Alchemist and at level 3 be LvL 1 Fighter/ LvL 2 Alchemist and use my discovery to get one arm and get the bonus discovery feat to get the second.
I understand this much.But heres the part I need to ask about:
When fighting with a two handed weapon in each set of hands, how would I go about using the two-weapon fighting feat?
Would I need it for this case?
And if so would it just be the standard -4/-4 penalty?Also I sheepishly ask; are there any feats to increase attack rolls at the cost of anything else e.g. AC?
Sadly, the only benefit you get is that you get to have 4 weapons in hand, and choose which weapons to use for your attacks.
So, say you have a +7 BAB, that means you get two attacks to use with manufactured weapons, add two weapon fighting and that gives you a third attack. So, say you have a longsword, dagger, mein gauche and a sai in your hands. So, you could hit with the long sword and then get two strikes with one of the other three weapons you are wielding.If you can take the multi-weapon fighting feat then all your extra arms are considered the "off hand" and you can choose a different hand for each extra two-weapon fighting attack.
But that is all, as far as I understand it.
|
Before I say anything, I want to say you should expect table variation.
1) vestigial limb does not give extra atttack.
2) Normally, you only get your standard set of attacks with a two handed weapon. So to attack with two of them would in effect give you extra attacks.
3) the correct feat to mitigate the penalties for more than one weapon when you have more than two arms is multi-weapon fighting, which is not available to characters in PFS.
4) some creatures actually use two, two handed weapons. But thier write-up specifically calls out that they can do this. No need to clarify, if it normally could be done.
5) Sean K Reynolds posted up that the vestigial arms were "never meant to create a two, two-handed weapon monstrosity."
My opinion is you can't do this as it essentially gives you more attacks than you normally could get, which the vestigial arms don't give you.
But even if you find a GM that will allow it, since you can't get multi-weapon fighting, you would take the full -6/-10 (if I remember correctly) penalties.
But as I said above, expect table variation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You need a rule that says you can do it, not the absence of a rule that says you can't.
The vestigal arms are not as functional as your real arms, so they don't grant extra attacks. You could *hold* two two-handed weapons, but only fight with one at a time.
|
|
But then why is it just two-weapon fighting if I cannot do it while wielding two-weapons in this way?
Is there anywhere that is says I cannot use two-weapon fighting to benefit from dual wielding two-handed weapons in this way?
There Multi-weapon fighting feat says creatures with more than two arms replace two-weapon fighting with multi-weapon fighting. It doesn't discuss how the arms are used, rather that simply having them changes which feat you need.
|
|
Everything here is mostly correct, except multiweapon fighting is not needed even with multiple extra arms. It never is. What multiweapon fighting gives you is the effect of twoweapon fighting for reducing the penalties with all your extra arms. Otherwise you must pick one main hand and one off hand, as if you only had two arms.( This only matters in PFS as multi-weapon fighting is not legal. For a home game, it should be automatic, and you should ask your GM)
Now, while SKR did say that it was never meant to he did not say that it does not allow for it. BUT, you can't attack with a main hand with two hands... so two weapon fighting already precludes the ability to use two hands and call that a main or offhand attack. There needs to be a special rule granting the ability to do so.
Also, the alchemist limbs DO function exactly as their original limbs. They do not grant extra attacks by merely existing. BUT, if you have an ability that grants you extra attacks if you had three arms... then you get the extra attack because of that second ability. In such a case, if you had four arms do to vestigial arm and had multi weapon fighting, you could use any of your other three arms as offhand arms for the extra attacks gained through multi weapon fighting.
TL;DR
Extra arm != extra attack
Extra arm + feat that grants extra attack with arm == extra attack.
|
|
No. Because vestigial arms don't give you extra attacks, no need to take multi-weapon fighting. In other words you never attack with more than two weapons.
In the case of two two-handed weapons, it is my opinion that constitutes extra attacks, because normally you cannot get more than your standard allotment of attacks with a two-handed weapon. So using vestigial arms to wield two of them would be extra attacks.
The discussion on multi-weapon fighting though still stands. If you have multiple arms (the implication is that they can attack) you must take multi-weapon fighting in lieu of two-weapon fighting, no matter how many arms you actually choose to use.
You could however become an AOO fiend... 2 hands with long spear, 2 hands with spear I can't remember its name that has a 15' reach and a bite attack. AOO moving from 15' to 10' and 10' to hand to hand... And, you don't need to switch out weapons because you have a bite. Use combat maneuvers like trip and sunder since they do not threaten you. Not the greatest build but it would be a giant PITA to GMs. Good luck and have fun.
|
|
Incorrect on multi-weapon fighting Lorewarden. The feat specifically says replace two weapon with multi weapon for those with more than two arms. It does not speculate how many arms would be wielding a weapon.
It can't replace it in PFS as it is not legal, which is why I added a caveat to my top paragraph explaining that. But then went on to say that its exchange was automatic in a home game and to ask the GM about it. Also, the rule to replace two-weapon fighting is part of the feat that is not legal, so it is a no-go from the start. You can take two-weapon fighting with more than two hands in PFS.
We can take a quick look at the Xill.
It has four arms. It gets three manufactured, one regular attack, one off-hand attack and an iterative. Then it is allowed any natural attacks it has left, a claw and a bite.
If the xill was wielding 4 short swords instead of a three it would lose out on a natural attack and not gain a new off-hand attack.
The xill has no feats or abilities which grant extra attacks, it just uses the base rules for attacks and an ability that reduces penalties.
Multi-weapon fighting and two-weapon fighting are the same thing in function except multi-weapon fighting lets you attack with more than two weapons in an attack action while still retaining a reduction in penalties. Neither gives extra attacks.
The extra arms, I repeat, do not grant you an extra attack just for existing. They do represent an opportunity that can utilize extra attacks gained otherwise, though. They can be used for any attacks granted otherwise, even those attacks being able to be used based on the fact that having an extra free arm allows for an extra attack. An example would be a three armed being wielding a two handed weapon. They trip a creature, gain an attack through vicious stomp and thus must use an unarmed attack... they can use their third arm for this attack. They can even replace other attacks they could have made with an attack with this third arm even if the attack bonus for the arm would be higher than the attack it is replacing.
The feats specifically says 'hand' not 'hands' when it refers to what is wielding a weapon for two-weapon and multi-weapon fighting. There is no speculation in regards to plurality, it is quite singular. Of course since both feats are voluntary and do not actually grant the ability to fight with multiple weapons, as they only reduce penalties, we should be reading the combat rules. And the combat rules use the same language. No plurality. That is the basis of my saying that two-weapon two-handed fighting is out due to combat rules RAW.
Interesting enough, there does not seem to be anything against using a two-handed weapon and an offhand weapon to two weapon fight, even with vestigial hand. (No extra attacks are gained for having the arm, only for wielding two weapons) Other than it is certainly not intended.
Now! After saying all that, as a GM you could rule that you view holding a weapon in two hands as a 'main hand' even though it would be 'main hands'. It may even makes sense to do so. But, RAW, it says hand.
The combat rules were written on the base assumption that characters that use manufactured weapons have two hands and how more hands work can only be gleaned by pouring over cases of multi-weapon fighting in the game.
As happens quite often in this game a rules discussion leads to a firm 'maybe, if you read it this way'.
|
|
@TPK...
You only get one AoO for a single creatures entire move through your threatened aread.
You do NOT get one for the 15ft-10ft, then for the 10ft-5ft.
Each movement provokes only once regardless of how many squares they move through.
So unless you stopped them at 10 ft and they had to move again next round to 5ft, they would only have one AoO.
You get one attack of opportunity per one action which provokes(given that you have combat reflexes and can take advantage of these AOOs). Moving does not provoke. Moving out of a threatened square does provoke. If the character moves out of several threatened squares in a movement, they have done several things which provoke and each provoke leads to an AOO.
Otherwise, an archer could make a full attack action(one action) and only provoke on his first attack in a threatened square. No, he provokes for each attack made as part of his one action.The limitation on AOOs is that a character can not take advantage of one provocation to make several attacks even if he has feats which could indicate that.
An example is greater trip and vicious stomp. If a character has both of these feats and then trips a creature, the creature provokes for being tripped and then also provokes for falling prone(as the feats describe). The tripping character gets two potential attacks of opportunity in this case as 'being tripped' and 'falling prone' are two separate cases.
If vicious stomp said that it keyed off of a character 'being tripped', then the tripping character would only be able to take advantage of one potential AOO as they both key off the same action.
Faq explaining VS and GT
|
|
Movement only provokes once. Each attack by an archer is a separate event.@TPK...
You only get one AoO for a single creatures entire move through your threatened aread.
You do NOT get one for the 15ft-10ft, then for the 10ft-5ft.
Each movement provokes only once regardless of how many squares they move through.
So unless you stopped them at 10 ft and they had to move again next round to 5ft, they would only have one AoO.
You get one attack of opportunity per one action which provokes(given that you have combat reflexes and can take advantage of these AOOs). Moving does not provoke. Moving out of a threatened square does provoke. If the character moves out of several threatened squares in a movement, they have done several things which provoke and each provoke leads to an AOO.
Otherwise, an archer could make a full attack action(one action) and only provoke on his first attack in a threatened square. No, he provokes for each attack made as part of his one action.
Ah, I had forgotten that this is the one caveat to the general rule. While each movement out of a threatened square would also be an event, the rules state specifically that they do not provoke from the same opponent more than once. Thank you for correcting me.
Combat Reflexes and Additional Attacks of Opportunity: If you have the Combat Reflexes feat, you can add your Dexterity bonus to the number of attacks of opportunity you can make in a round. This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity, but if the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity (since each one represents a different opportunity). Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn't count as more than one opportunity for that opponent. All these attacks are at your full normal attack bonus.
Man, the whole off hand rule set up really derpy. I love the idea of a pc with multiple arms, but the game rules hate everything that isn't fighting with a two hander.
Cool imagery though, duel wielding great swords for the win... As long as your not playing some version of DND.
|
|
Just for anyone who pops by this thread...
Alchemist, Tentacle/Vestigial Arm: What does "extra attacks" mean for these discoveries?
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.
posted November 2013 | back to top
Actually I was expecting that the AOO were not just from movement... Hence the comment about tripping, disarms and sunders so that you generate additional AOO from falling down, standing up, attacking without a weapon, etc. Sorry was short on time when I posted originally.
Not sure if this helps but the Kasatha gets 4 attacks due to its 4 arms. Though slightly different because it calls out its offhands.
Attacks are a finite resource systems-wise, but there are other potentially cool uses:
1: Wield a two-handed melee weapon for 1,5 STR and simultaneously a mighty composite bow. Get STR up as high as possible and get feats that add ranged attacks / boost melee as full-round actions. Anyone comes close...hit them. Anyone tries to run? Hit them again. Might work best as a multi-class switch hitter fighter for weapon proficiencies, etc.
2: Wield a shield and a wand of Cure Serious Wounds in your vestigial limbs, a two-handed weapon in your normal hands. Most GMs should accept the shield granting its bonus while you hit with 1,5 STR. If not in striking distance, heal up, then charge. Get martial weapon and shield proficiency from a one-level dip into battle oracle or a cleric with a two-handed favored weapon. Lamasthu fits your appearance nicely.
3: Get two light weapons, like daggers, usable during a grapple and then grapple and sting :) Add poison to taste. No multi-classing required.
Has anyone brought up how claws interact with extra arms? Technically having natural weapons in an unoccupied limb should allow you to make attacks with them independent of your BAB manufactured weapon progression, right?
Edit: Nevermind, see it got touched upon.