It bears so much elaboration because I'm struggling to understand the point of your homebrew feat if all it does is give extra off-hand attacks.That's because that's not exactly what the feat does? Read the OP again. It says give additional "off-hand". "Off-hand". Its purpose is to allow you to use a 3rd weapon. Think of it like a 2nd "off-hand" from TWF. Get it now?
So it gives you an off-hand, but just for the purpose of gaining an extra off-hand attack? That's quite meta.
Regardless, the benefit is still effectively the same as Improved Two-Weapon Fighting except way better because your feat's off-hand attack would operate at a -2 penalty instead of a -7 penalty. Having to use a third weapon is largely irrelevant in Pathfinder, which doesn't force you to use the same weapon for iterative. The only restriction is that you can't make an off-hand attack with the weapon you designate as your "primary weapon" at the start of your attacks. Even factoring in splitting splitting your wealth three ways, you still come out ahead significantly.
Also, you don't need to be so snooty as to keep saying "read the OP" as if the people trying to help you are a bunch of idiots. You're deliberately trying to create a very abstract feat, and you haven't shown any rules text for it. This will make it difficult for others to understand what you're going for.
So it gives you an off-hand, but just for the purpose of gaining an extra off-hand attack? That's quite meta.It bears so much elaboration because I'm struggling to understand the point of your homebrew feat if all it does is give extra off-hand attacks.That's because that's not exactly what the feat does? Read the OP again. It says give additional "off-hand". "Off-hand". Its purpose is to allow you to use a 3rd weapon. Think of it like a 2nd "off-hand" from TWF. Get it now?
I don't think you understand. It gives you the ability to wield "three hands' worth" of weapons effectively." While that's indeed abstract, that's only because the "two hands worth of effort" rule the FAQ established is itself abstract.
Regardless, the benefit is still effectively the same as Improved Two-Weapon Fighting except way better because your feat's off-hand attack would operate at a -2 penalty instead of a -7 penalty. Having to use a third weapon is largely irrelevant in Pathfinder, which doesn't force you to use the same weapon for iterative.
Not at all. The proposed feat doesn't even give any extra attacks; you're not "forced" to use a third weapon. The point is that you are permitted to use an additional (hand's worth of) weapon.
By the current set of Pathfinder rules, if I'm using a glaive or other two-handed reach weapon, I can't also use a boulder helmet, armor spikes, or elbow strike to make attacks at close range, even if I have the iterative attacks for it. The proposed feat would allow a glaive+elbow strike combination.
TWF doesn't enter into it. Any character can make an extra attack per round, simply by taking penalties. Similarly, any character with +6 BAB can make two attacks per round using iteratives (at no penalty), or three attacks with penalties. The TWF feat simply reduces the penalties.
I'm imagining the original question as being someone who is juggling a longsword, warhammer, and heavy pick, and trying to use all three weapons in one Full Attack, without using iteratives. If that's the case ... erk. I don't think the cosmetics on that are cool enough to work.
Maybe require Quick Draw to represent where all these weapons are going? And add in a -2 on ALL attacks, including the main ones? Thus, assuming you have BAB +5 (merely for simplicity), you'd have either one shot at +5, two at +1/+1, or three at -1/-1/-1.
Or vary it some as far as whether it's -2 or -4 or even worse based on light weapons or lack thereof, like the example I'm imagining.
I'm imagining the original question as being someone who is juggling a longsword, warhammer, and heavy pick, and trying to use all three weapons in one Full Attack, without using iteratives. If that's the case ... erk. I don't think the cosmetics on that are cool enough to work.
The opening poster addressed this in a later post, and he's not necessarily looking to juggle three hand-held weapons:
Do the cosmetics really matter? As I already mentioned, there are some weapons that don't use hands. The above mentioned boot blades, armor spikes, that helmet thing or a barbazu beard are already 4 additional weapons (I think the beard and helmet take the same slot). Or you can just make unarmed strikes.
I think the cosmetics of someone using a boot blade, spiked armor, a spiked helmet, and two swords are definitely cool. Even the cosmetics of someone using a two-handed sword and kicking are cool.... in fact, it's common enough that it almost doesn't quality as "cool" any more.
And from a strategic-mechanical standpoint, the ability to use a two-handed reach weapon like a spear and still be able to attack someone in an adjacent square would address one of the significant weaknesses of the reach weapon fighter (which is why they include stuff like kicks in the two-handed sword or longspear forms in real life martial arts).
Maybe require Quick Draw to represent where all these weapons are going? And add in a -2 on ALL attacks, including the main ones? Thus, assuming you have BAB +5 (merely for simplicity), you'd have either one shot at +5, two at +1/+1, or three at -1/-1/-1.
I don't think you understand. The proposed feat does not give additional attacks. If you have a BAB of +5, you're still restricted to one attack, or two with penalties. The difference is that you can use three (abstract) hands, if needed, to make those two attacks -- like a two handed sword and armor spikes.