|
And everyone at Paizo knows that Bestiary creatures don't have to follow the same rules as PCs, which has been mentioned and discussed before, so it has no meaning in a discussion of PC rules.
Setting aside the fact that this distinction you cite between 'monster rules' and 'PC rules' does not actually exist (permissive system! rule must be explicitly stated!)... and the fact that, where monsters have abilities that PCs do not, that is always stated by an ability in their stat block - except in the case of these multi-armed attacks...
I said every stat block. Not just the Bestiary ones. Every stat block in a Campaign Setting or Player Companion book. Every NPC in an adventure path. Every PC playable race.
Every single time the issue has come up, the authors and editors at Paizo have presented it the way the 'one attack per arm' side of this 'debate' interpret the rules... and every single time they have done so without feeling the need to include an ability in the stat block explaining how it works (except the Kasatha Multi-armed ability which you actually interpret as NOT doing so). Because... the MWF rules already do that.
|
|
I'll just note that no one has even tried to dispute this;
Fact 1: Every single stat block representing a creature holding weapons in three or more arms allows them to attack with each of those weapons in the same round.
Fact 2: None of these stat blocks contains an ability (other than the Kasatha Multi-Armed ability, as interpreted by the 'one attack per arm' side') which would allow these multi-arm attacks.Conclusion: Everyone at Paizo who has ever made a stat block of this type agreed that each arm holding a weapon could be used to attack - without needing to add a separate ability stating this.
True but totally irrelevant.
Read what I wrote several times: the stat block, attacks included, is a source of a rule for the creature. A statblock that give a creature X attacks give that creature X attacks. It don't make a rule linking the number of arms with the numbers of armed attacks a creature can make.
I cast animate object on a statue of Kalì. 4 arms, 2 legs. It is still limited to a single slam attack unless I spend Construction Points in giving it extra attacks.
|
|
Read what I wrote several times: the stat block, attacks included, is a source of a rule for the creature. A statblock that give a creature X attacks give that creature X attacks.
Can you cite any other example where a creature has an effect in their stat block which ISN'T documented amongst their abilities or general rules?
I mean, if the stat block in and of itself is sufficient to meet your 'must have an explicit rule' requirement then what need is there for the 'Multiweapon Mastery' ability that many creatures have? Couldn't they just list the attacks with the specified bonuses and have no need for explaining how they arrived at those results? Why do the stat blocks/rules explain the details of how that, and dozens of other special abilities, work... but not attacks with multiple arms?
The answer, of course, is that without an explaining rule the GM has no way to know how to handle things if the situation changes. What if the creature loses some of its weapons? Can it replace them with whatever is lying around? Do the number of attacks / bonuses change? Without a rule to follow the GM has to guess at these questions. So the stat blocks include special abilities explaining how these options work. So why do you believe attacks with multiple arms to be the one and only exception?
At that, if the attacks listed in the Bestiary stat block are 'the rule' which defines how many weapon attacks creatures of that type get... then how do you explain the previously cited examples of individual Xill, Calikang, Kasatha, et cetera which are given more weapons than the Bestiary examples and then able to make full attacks with 3 or more of these weapons in the same round? Do they each have a unique, nowhere stated, power that grants them these extra attacks that other members of their respective species lack?
It don't make a rule linking the number of arms with the numbers of armed attacks a creature can make.
Yet, the fact remains that is the de facto situation. You say there is no rule, because you interpret the three rules cited differently, but the level of coincidence required for the same result to 'coincidentally' be achieved every time is then absurdly unlikely.
And... even if it is just a massive series of coincidences... it is then still the actual rule in practice for all known examples.
I cast animate object on a statue of Kalì. 4 arms, 2 legs. It is still limited to a single slam attack unless I spend Construction Points in giving it extra attacks.
Natural weapon attacks... and the rules for how it works are specifically stated.
Diego, you're missing my point. PF used the same language available in the Open Source materials because that's what they had to use (a lot of language was tweaked between 3.5 and open source 3.5, but none of it changed how any rules work). This was released with the same intent as the base 3.5 language. So if the question is a matter of intent, the intent is the same from 3.5 to Open Source to PF.
And everyone at Paizo knows that Bestiary creatures don't have to follow the same rules as PCs, which has been mentioned and discussed before, so it has no meaning in a discussion of PC rules.I'll just note that no one has even tried to dispute this;
Fact 1: Every single stat block representing a creature holding weapons in three or more arms allows them to attack with each of those weapons in the same round.
Fact 2: None of these stat blocks contains an ability (other than the Kasatha Multi-Armed ability, as interpreted by the 'one attack per arm' side') which would allow these multi-arm attacks.Conclusion: Everyone at Paizo who has ever made a stat block of this type agreed that each arm holding a weapon could be used to attack - without needing to add a separate ability stating this.
It's also been mentioned that this is misreprenting how that plays out. We're told in the stat blocks how the monsters break the rules, if they do.
|
|
And... even if it is just a massive series of coincidences... it is then still the actual rule in practice for all known examples.
Only, as you do, you say that any know example where it don't work that way is "a special case".
"It has only 2 weapons available", "the description say that it don't use the hands to attack", "it is using 2 bows, but that is 4 arms in use, it don't matter if it use 2 weapon and 2 claws in melee" and so on.
It is easy to make a general rule is you discard any data that say differently.
|
|
Diego, you're missing my point. PF used the same language available in the Open Source materials because that's what they had to use (a lot of language was tweaked between 3.5 and open source 3.5, but none of it changed how any rules work). This was released with the same intent as the base 3.5 language. So if the question is a matter of intent, the intent is the same from 3.5 to Open Source to PF.
Actually there is a piece of text that isn't present in the SRD and was added by Paizo:
This multi-armed creature is skilled at making attacks with multiple weapons.
So they added some text, why they haven't added more?
They did that with pretty much every feat. The SRD doesn't include any introductory descriptions for any feat. PF added a fluff descriptor for all of them because it makes for a more interesting read. The operative text was very rarely changed in any meaningful fashion. So this situation is the same as nearly every feat directly ported over from 3.5. That PF added some fluff text here is really of no moment.
|
|
Only, as you do, you say that any know example where it don't work that way is "a special case".
That 'quotation'... isn't. That is, you are quoting me as having said something in a context... which I have not.
"It has only 2 weapons available", "the description say that it don't use the hands to attack", "it is using 2 bows, but that is 4 arms in use, it don't matter if it use 2 weapon and 2 claws in melee" and so on.
Also all false 'quotations'. Indeed, I don't think any of these are even plausible 'paraphrasings' of anything I have written.
It is easy to make a general rule is you discard any data that say differently.
Setting aside the made up 'quotations'... you seem to be suggesting that the logical way to analyze how fighting with 3 or more manufactured weapons works in Pathfinder... is to look at various situations (as in each of your supposed quotations above) involving creatures using 2 or fewer manufactured weapons.
Can you really not see how irrational that seems?
If you were attempting to identify the sounds which cats make would you include sounds made by dogs in your analysis?
Of course, I do not include cases involving fewer than three weapons in my analysis of how use of three or more weapons works. That isn't 'discarding data that says differently'. Rather, it is looking at all of the data relevant to the topic and not incorporating data which has no bearing.
It is easy to reach an erroneous conclusion when you base it on data irrelevant to the issue.
|
|
Those quotations are a sum up of your (your group) positions in this thread and are the reasons why the example against were dismissed.
And your (group) argument is that having more than 2 hands give more that 2 armed attacks.
There are creatures with more than 2 arms and the ability to get the weapons that don't get more than 2 armed attacks.
You are shifting your position to win an argument.
If the argument you are making is "creatures that have 3+ armed attacks in the Bestiary have 3+ armed attack", fine. It is what I have said from the start: "The creature need to have 3+ armed attacks in the statblock". But that isn't the argument that was made in this and the other thread. The argument was "4 hands give you 4 armed attacks automatically".
It is perfectly fine to use "..." when you are summing up an argument made in several posts.
If I cite something directly I use "quote=CBDunkerson " an "/quote". So stop playing the outraged guy.
|
|
You are shifting your position to win an argument.
Rather, you are conflating my arguments with those of others who disagree with you.
If the argument you are making is "creatures that have 3+ armed attacks in the Bestiary have 3+ armed attack", fine.
More... 'creatures (not just those in Bestiaries) that have weapons in 3+ hands are normally able to make a full attack with all of those weapons in the same round'.
It is what I have said from the start: "The creature need to have 3+ armed attacks in the statblock".
Again, you haven't responded to repeated requests for how you explain creatures that do not have 3+ armed attacks in the Bestiary statblock, but then individual examples of those same creatures in other materials DO get 3+ armed attacks simply by picking up additional weapons.
Nor have you responded to repeated requests to explain why this 3+ weapon attack ability is not specified anywhere in any creature description (note, it actually IS for the Kasatha, but you reject that text) or other rules (again, it IS in MWF and Multi-armed, but you reject those too). Why is the 'melee' line sufficient 'rule' for attacks with 3+ weapons, but not for the 'Multiweapon Mastery' ability (which impacts the bonus for those attacks) or ANY other ability on ANY creature? What makes this the one and only exception?
The argument was "4 hands give you 4 armed attacks automatically".
No... you also need to have manufactured weapons in each of those hands.
There are also one or two corner cases (e.g. Vestigial Arm) where there is a special rule that the extra hand can't be used to make extra weapon attacks (which, in and of itself, implies that normally they CAN).
So more like... 'you get one weapon attack for each arm holding a weapon, unless there is a specific rule to the contrary'.
It is perfectly fine to use "..." when you are summing up an argument made in several posts.
No, I don't believe presenting paraphrases as quotations is 'perfectly fine' to begin with... but when the false quotations are also attributed to someone who didn't even write the 'paraphrased' posts? Not remotely valid.
I just want to make sure I understand you correctly, Diego.
Lhaksharuts have six arms, the Multiweapon Mastery special attack, and are statted with three melee weapons. So your position is that they can only ever attack with three manufactured weapons at most, even if they come across three more weapons some how?
Vrolikai have four arms, the Multiweapon Mastery ability, and are statted out with four manufactured weapons. So they can attack with all four arms. But only because of their stat block?
Shobhads have four arms, the Multiweapon Fighting feat, and are statted out with two manufactured weapons. So even though they have the MWF feat, your position is that they can only attack with at most two manufactured weapons, even if they come across more at some point? For what reason do they have MWF, then?
Wielding a weapon in no way confers the ability to attack with it.
Actually, yes it does.
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.
This is a simple IF Then statement. If you wield a weapon, then you get an extra attack with that weapon.
Normally, humans can only "wield" one extra weapon as they have only one off hand, even though they may have more than one off hand weapon available.
A human can have a longsword, short sword, barbazu beard, blade boots, etc. But you can only wield two of them at a time, main hand and off hand. You cannot be "wielding" more than two because you don't have another "hand" to wield it with.
But the Multiarmed ability grants the ability to wield weapons with all arms, thus granting additional attacks as well.
This is all from the point of view of gaining extra attacks, since that is the question of this thread. You could in fact "wield" and attack with all those weapons at the same time if you were not gaining any extra attacks from doing so.
And you are simply wrong when talking about permissive/restrictive rules in reference to games. It has been used the way Diego and I described for years. Don't care if you don't like it, it is what it is.
No, that simply means you have been using the word incorrectly for years.
"Wielding" is one of those wonderful terms used in several different ways in the rules.
Which is why I acknowledged it isn't the most explicitly stated rule, but I find that it a sufficiently stated rule.
And you are comparing the wrong lines.
Compare
"If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon."
with
"Members of this race possess three arms. A member of this race can wield multiple weapons, but only one hand is its primary hand, and all others are off hands."
|
|
I just want to make sure I understand you correctly, Diego.
Lhaksharuts have six arms, the Multiweapon Mastery special attack, and are statted with three melee weapons. So your position is that they can only ever attack with three manufactured weapons at most, even if they come across three more weapons some how?
Vrolikai have four arms, the Multiweapon Mastery ability, and are statted out with four manufactured weapons. So they can attack with all four arms. But only because of their stat block?
Shobhads have four arms, the Multiweapon Fighting feat, and are statted out with two manufactured weapons. So even though they have the MWF feat, your position is that they can only attack with at most two manufactured weapons, even if they come across more at some point? For what reason do they have MWF, then?
My position is that, unless they are statted with the same number of armed attacks as the number of hand we don't know if they can make as many armed attacks as hands.
The rules are silent, and in that silence I tend to rule in a conservative way.
@CBDunkerson: I haven't replied to the examples taken by modules because the reply is one of those I dislike, even when it is true: modules statblocks have a lot of problems as they reflect the interpretation of the module writers, generally a freelance contributor, and not a developer of the game.
Example: a lesser Jabberwock using Vital strike with its eye rays in the tactics section of its description.
Almost every moduel has 1 exampe of a questionable statblock.
|
|
@CBDunkerson: I haven't replied to the examples taken by modules because the reply is one of those I dislike, even when it is true: modules statblocks have a lot of problems as they reflect the interpretation of the module writers, generally a freelance contributor, and not a developer of the game.
Errors happen. Unquestionably true. However, a few points;
1: It isn't just freelance contributors. Looking at the acknowledgements pages of the various books with these examples, practically everyone at Paizo has been a contributing author and/or editor on them. There is no way to determine who did what in each book, but it seems implausible that none of these examples were written or reviewed by Paizo staff.
2: Errors are not usually consistent with each other across multiple authors and editors over the course of many years. Just like the 'no rule' Bestiary entries which all coincidentally arrive at the same result, so too do all the AP/module 'error' entries all match that same supposedly non-existent rule.
3: Errors are also often identified and acknowledged as such... yet I don't believe anyone has even suggested that any of these examples might be erroneous before now (i.e. I didn't find any such with a few quick searches).
4: You still haven't explained why the 'melee' line of the statblock would be sufficient to cover multi armed attack rules, but all other elements of stat blocks are specifically explained by particular monster abilities or other rules. Why is this the only rule which (according to your view that MWF, ARG Multi-Armed trait, and/or Kasatha Multi-Armed ability do NOT cover it) is treated differently?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well that's a well reasoned argument.
I just want to make sure I understand you correctly, Diego.
Lhaksharuts have six arms, the Multiweapon Mastery special attack, and are statted with three melee weapons. So your position is that they can only ever attack with three manufactured weapons at most, even if they come across three more weapons some how?
Vrolikai have four arms, the Multiweapon Mastery ability, and are statted out with four manufactured weapons. So they can attack with all four arms. But only because of their stat block?
Shobhads have four arms, the Multiweapon Fighting feat, and are statted out with two manufactured weapons. So even though they have the MWF feat, your position is that they can only attack with at most two manufactured weapons, even if they come across more at some point? For what reason do they have MWF, then?
My position is that, unless they are statted with the same number of armed attacks as the number of hand we don't know if they can make as many armed attacks as hands.
The rules are silent, and in that silence I tend to rule in a conservative way.
I can appreciate that. But do you not see the curious position that creates? Shobhad have four arms and the MWF feat. They have the feat so it's not even a theoretical question of whether it was contemplated to allow them to attack with multiple weapons. Lhaksharut is an even more curious case. They have three weapons for six arms and an ability that gives no indication that their number of weapon attacks is limited to three. On what basis would you determine that their other arms are incapable of attacking, even if they held weapons? Aren't you necessarily drawing an inference in coming to any conclusion regarding whether such a creature can attack with all or only three of its arms?
As you noted, the rules seem to be silent. But these entries give a pretty strong indication of the intended rules function. On what inferences are you relying when you decide that a creature with MWF is nonetheless limited by the attack options of TWF, which MWF explicitly replaces for this creature?
You haven't disproven anything, much less done a thorough job of it.
A note on the earlier comparison to the specific limitation in the Vestigial Arm discovery. This post by the PDT certainly indicates it was an intentional restriction to limit the power of a low level power, not simply redundant unnecessary text as some seem to think.
|
|
I can appreciate that. But do you not see the curious position that creates? Shobhad have four arms and the MWF feat. They have the feat so it's not even a theoretical question of whether it was contemplated to allow them to attack with multiple weapons. Lhaksharut is an even more curious case. They have three weapons for six arms and an ability that gives no indication that their number of weapon attacks is limited to three. On what basis would you determine that their other arms are incapable of attacking, even if they held weapons? Aren't you necessarily drawing an inference in coming to any conclusion regarding whether such a...I just want to make sure I understand you correctly, Diego.
Lhaksharuts have six arms, the Multiweapon Mastery special attack, and are statted with three melee weapons. So your position is that they can only ever attack with three manufactured weapons at most, even if they come across three more weapons some how?
Vrolikai have four arms, the Multiweapon Mastery ability, and are statted out with four manufactured weapons. So they can attack with all four arms. But only because of their stat block?
Shobhads have four arms, the Multiweapon Fighting feat, and are statted out with two manufactured weapons. So even though they have the MWF feat, your position is that they can only attack with at most two manufactured weapons, even if they come across more at some point? For what reason do they have MWF, then?
My position is that, unless they are statted with the same number of armed attacks as the number of hand we don't know if they can make as many armed attacks as hands.
The rules are silent, and in that silence I tend to rule in a conservative way.
Probably even the Devs don't have a definitive answer for this question.
The monsters have been developed in 4 versions of the game (today Pathfinder is different enough from 3.5 that it is more 4alternate than 3.75) by different persons, revised by even more persons and interpreted in modules and AP by another group of persons. Some people was part of several of those groups, no one was part of all of them, AFAIK.Let's focus on one question: we are speaking of rules for NPC or rules for PC?
If we are speaking of NPC, in the end it is "whatever feel right for how we want to use the creature".
Marilith with greater multi weapon fighting for a high level game with lots of melee combat? Sure.
Not giving a level 1 NPC Kasatha 4 attacks against 1st level adventurers? Sure. I don't want to slaughter the PCs.
If we are speaking of PC, I want a clear rule that will allow them to do something. Getting 4 attacks at level 1 with a -2 to hit is extremely powerful.
Even getting 3 off hands attacks at level 15 is powerful if they are made at -2 and getting them require a single feat, while normal adventurers need a high dexterity, 3 feats and get 3 iterative attacks.
So, for me, a rule written in a questionable way (the old 3.5 rule was clear, but the relevant text was removed and wasn't replaced with something as clear) should be read in a restrictive way, especially if reading it otherwise will push upward the power of some PC.
At the end of the day, I am pretty sure that there isn't a definitive answer in the Rules As Written. Searching all the modules and supplements, with enough patience and disregarding the examples against our opinion as errors or special cases we can "prove" almost anything.
So peace and let this thread die until the Devs give a definitive answer.
|
|
Let's focus on one question: we are speaking of rules for NPC or rules for PC?
Marilith with greater multi weapon fighting for a high level game with lots of melee combat? Sure.
Not giving a level 1 NPC Kasatha 4 attacks against 1st level adventurers? Sure. I don't want to slaughter the PCs.If we are speaking of PC, I want a clear rule that will allow them to do something. Getting 4 attacks at level 1 with a -2 to hit is extremely powerful.
..and finally, the real issue.
Logically, the rule is the rule... regardless of whether it is being applied to a PC or NPC, or at high vs low level.
Ultimately, your entire issue has nothing to do with the rule at all... and everything to do with 'game balance'. Getting one attack per arm makes 4 armed creatures 'overpowered' at low levels?
I agree.
Indeed, that's why ISR lists Kasatha as a 'two star' race and the ARG has them at 20 RP... both of which come out as indicating a 'monstrous race' which GMs are warned to consider carefully before allowing for play.
However, the answer is then to simply not allow over-powered / unbalanced options. GMs should not allow a Kasatha PC unless they can adjust the power level of other PCs and opponents to match. Marilith should not be thrown at low level parties. Very clear stuff in the realm of proper GMing and having nothing whatsoever to do with the actual nature of the rules.
The reality is that the rule on fighting with weapons in 3+ hands is, and always has been, quite clear. Understanding it doesn't require, "disregarding examples against our opinion"... because there aren't any. Not one creature in any Bestiary, AP, module, or other book contradicts the reading of Multiweapon Fighting as allowing up to one primary hand weapon attack and one off-hand weapon attack with each additional hand. That's a perfectly reasonable reading of the text, which is consistent with all known examples, and without which there is no explanation for how creatures get attacks with 3+ weapons in various stat blocks which allow this... unlike ANY other ability.
In short, the rule being 'over-powered' for a normal 1st level PC doesn't change the fact that it IS the rule. It just means that the option shouldn't normally be given to a 1st level PC.
Four attacks at -2, three of which get half STR is less powerful at level 1 than three attacks at BAB all getting full STR. That latter one is a very common occurrence. Getting three natural attacks at 1st level (and definitely second) isn't hard to do even for relatively common PC races. Plus, at least the Kasatha has to spend money on weapons.
*shrug*
That is incorrect, but we're going in circles. The PC rules are no different than the NPC rules. The only differences are when we're explicitly told what they are. No such differences exist with MWF.
Calth, would you allow the Shobhad NPC to pick up another weapon and attack with all three, per MWF?
Is it in their statblock? Then no.That is incorrect, but we're going in circles. The PC rules are no different than the NPC rules. The only differences are when we're explicitly told what they are. No such differences exist with MWF.
Calth, would you allow the Shobhad NPC to pick up another weapon and attack with all three, per MWF?
MWF is in their statblock. So they have the feat. Also, what about the specific NPCs CB referenced above? Would you let them utilize MWF since they have multiple weapons in their statblocks?
No, it is correct, you just don't like it. It is the correct representation of the RAW, and the two stated positions on RAI.
Is there a rules citation that says PCs and NPCs operate under different rules? If you provided it earlier, I must have missed it.
If I was playing them RAW, they get the attacks in their statblock.MWF is in their statblock. So they have the feat. Also, what about the specific NPCs CB referenced above? Would you let them utilize MWF since they have multiple weapons in their statblocks?Is it in their statblock? Then no.That is incorrect, but we're going in circles. The PC rules are no different than the NPC rules. The only differences are when we're explicitly told what they are. No such differences exist with MWF.
Calth, would you allow the Shobhad NPC to pick up another weapon and attack with all three, per MWF?
Doesn't RAW allow GMs to customize monsters? So I could give a Shobhad another melee weapon and not run afoul of RAW. In that case, can the Shobhad use all three weapons by MWF? How does that violate RAW?
It was either in this thread or the split off, but there have been numerous design team posts that Bestiary creatures/NPCs don't have to follow the same rules as PCs. Go look up the discussion threads for the bestiary design contents. They explicitly state that PC rules don't matter, you can have your creature do whatever you want.No, it is correct, you just don't like it. It is the correct representation of the RAW, and the two stated positions on RAI.Is there a rules citation that says PCs and NPCs operate under different rules? If you provided it earlier, I must have missed it.
I'm sorry, I'm going to need a rules citation. Designer posts on the forums don't count as RAW, per the PDT and lead designer.
Is this the quote you're referring to?
Building monsters 100% by the established rules means a lot of similar monsters. Monsters sometimes should break rules so they're interesting. Sundering a hydra's necks, even though you can't do that for other monster limbs. An ettin's double attacks. Monsters that can grab above the normal size limit. Eventually we get enough monsters with a certain ability (such as swallow whole) that it becomes standardized (rather than repeating slight variants of the swallow hole rule, making it harder to remember), which is fine... but the point is that "no monster (or none at this power level) is able to do this, but this one should be able to" is often the key to making an interesting encounter.
Because that doesn't really say "Monsters don't follow rules". It says you can break normal rules when designing monsters. But it also says explain how you're breaking the rules. All of the things he calls out are explicitly mentioned in the stat blocks. So this isn't a blanket PCs and Monsters don't abide by the same rules thing; they do, except when we're explicitly told monsters are different.
And to that end, it's not GM fiat to alter the weapons in a monster's stat block. That's specifically allowable per RAW. Giving a goblin an extra weapon so they can RWF isn't GM fiat allowable, it's just standard rulebook protocol. So why would it be different to give a Shobhad another melee weapon? That's not GM fiat; it's treating it like every other monster pregenerated. And since it has MWF, doesn't allowing all three attacks follow RAW, too? After all, creating a Red Dragon that doesn't have an already statted out age category example isn't GM fiat. Why is adding a weapon?
|
|
Let's focus on one question: we are speaking of rules for NPC or rules for PC?
Marilith with greater multi weapon fighting for a high level game with lots of melee combat? Sure.
Not giving a level 1 NPC Kasatha 4 attacks against 1st level adventurers? Sure. I don't want to slaughter the PCs.If we are speaking of PC, I want a clear rule that will allow them to do something. Getting 4 attacks at level 1 with a -2 to hit is extremely powerful.
..and finally, the real issue.
Logically, the rule is the rule... regardless of whether it is being applied to a PC or NPC, or at high vs low level.
Ultimately, your entire issue has nothing to do with the rule at all... and everything to do with 'game balance'. Getting one attack per arm makes 4 armed creatures 'overpowered' at low levels?
I agree.
Indeed, that's why ISR lists Kasatha as a 'two star' race and the ARG has them at 20 RP... both of which come out as indicating a 'monstrous race' which GMs are warned to consider carefully before allowing for play.
However, the answer is then to simply not allow over-powered / unbalanced options. GMs should not allow a Kasatha PC unless they can adjust the power level of other PCs and opponents to match. Marilith should not be thrown at low level parties. Very clear stuff in the realm of proper GMing and having nothing whatsoever to do with the actual nature of the rules.
The reality is that the rule on fighting with weapons in 3+ hands is, and always has been, quite clear. Understanding it doesn't require, "disregarding examples against our opinion"... because there aren't any. Not one creature in any Bestiary, AP, module, or other book contradicts the reading of Multiweapon Fighting as allowing up to one primary hand weapon attack and one off-hand weapon attack with each additional hand. That's a perfectly reasonable reading of the text, which is consistent with all known examples, and without which there is no explanation for how creatures get...
Again, you don't get what I am saying.
No, there isn't a rule that say that a PC has as many armed attacks as he has hands.There is a rule that say that the penalty for doing that is reduced.
We don't know if he get only 2 hands of efforts (as for the two weapon combat FAQ), as many hands of effort as as many hands he has, as many hands of effort as some piece of the creature description say, regardless of how many hands he has (see d'ziriak ) or some other thing.
So deciding what applies is RAI, not RAW.
There isn't a rule about PCs fighting with 3+ hands of weapons.
Based on the FAQs we could even argue that they are still limited to 1.5 times their strength bonus as bonus damage, regardless of the number of hands they have.
So saying that "The reality is that the rule on fighting with weapons in 3+ hands is, and always has been, quite clear." is completely disingenuous.
|
|
Is there a rules citation that says PCs and NPCs operate under different rules?
No. There isn't.
Rather, it has been said that monsters can have abilities that PCs can't. That's not exactly a revelation. However, it also isn't what is at issue here. Instead, the claim being made is effectively that monsters can have abilities which are not explained anywhere.
That is clearly false. There are literally hundreds of monsters... yet everything in all of those stat blocks can be explained by their specific monster abilities and/or general rules. Where things don't line up they are invariably errors of some sort.
The argument here is that the one and only exception is for creatures with 3+ weapon attacks. For this one issue only we are supposed to believe that there are never any rules specified. Each and every time it comes up the designers simply assign values to the 'melee' line with no underlying basis, and then forget to include a monster ability explaining how it works... and yet every single time they wind up having it work the same way.
The entire argument is obviously complete nonsense.
The Multiweapon Fighting rules clearly state how attacks with 3+ weapons work... and thus there is no need to specify these rules in the stats of each separate monster with 3+ weapons. The claim that the MWF rules are unclear or do not cover when 3+ weapon attacks are allowed is proven false by the fact that none of the stat blocks state a different rule, as they unquestionably would if there were not already a general rule covering the issue, and all of them agree with the MWF rule.
This isn't a debate. It is overwhelming 100% consistent evidence on one side and overwhelming completely inconsistent ('rules must be clearly specified! Except when that disproves my position!) denial on the other.
And the statblock that allows extra attacks explains how the rules are broken, because it shows the attacks.
That's not an explanation. Superior Two-Weapon Fighting is an explanation. A stat block entry for Swallow Whole is an explanation. A line about how a gaze attack works is an explanation. A melee attack line doesn't explain how rules work differently.
The stat blocks written with multiple weapon attacks aren't explaining new rules exceptions unless there's a specific ability mentioned that says it works differently. They are simply operating under the assumption that whatever combination of attacks is listed is legal, per the existent rules.
Already discussed and irrelevant. Try again.
You dismissing something as "redundant text" or "irrelevant" doesn't make it so.
The post I linked showed the PDT fully well intended that restriction specifically as a special case to limit the function of a low level power.
The only reason to put such a restriction in (and use up word count) is if it (to quote the PDT's post) "doesn't follow the standard rules."
I also want to add the High Girallon (don't think it has been mentioned) as a multiarmed creature attacking with multiple manufactured weapons.
Four arms, four axes, no specific ability granting it extra attacks with its extra arms.
I disagree with the argument you can dismiss this as "monsters break the rules" since it has no special ability listed to do so, but for those of you who do, part of that quote is...
Eventually we get enough monsters with a certain ability (such as swallow whole) that it becomes standardized
So if a whole lot of monsters with extra arms can all use extra manufactured weapons to attack, they are no longer breaking the rules. They are following a new standardized rule.
|
|
Eventually we get enough monsters with a certain ability (such as swallow whole) that it becomes standardizedSo if a whole lot of monsters with extra arms can all use extra manufactured weapons to attack, they are no longer breaking the rules. They are following a new standardized rule.
And the standardized rule is printed in the Universal Monster Rules section of the bestiary, while the creature get simply a mention of the ability.
It don't mean that every creature with a mouth get swallow whole.
A standardized rule is something that is explained only once instead than in every statblock, while the statblock get a mention of it.
I disagree with the argument you can dismiss this as "monsters break the rules" since it has no special ability listed to do so, but for those of you who do, part of that quote is...
Actually almost all monster with spell like abilities do that.
They get the spells without any "explanation" of how they get them.A few races have something like "drow magic" or some such, but most of them get the ability without "justification" for it.
By your logic it is a common ability so everyone get it. Instead it is a specific ability put in in the statblock without explanation.
|
|
And the standardized rule is printed in the Universal Monster Rules section of the bestiary, while the creature get simply a mention of the ability.
Yet, according to you, multi weapon attacks don't get either of those options... or any other explanation. They just 'appear' in the 'melee' line of the stat block with no outside basis or guiding principles.
In reality, of course, there are general game rules doing so in both the Multiweapon Fighting and Multi-Armed rules. Which is precisely why they do not require a specific ability listed on each monster or a Universal Monster Rule.
Just as the Two-Weapon Fighting rules in the CRB are applied to all monsters using two weapons without a separate entry being required, so too are the Multiweapon Fighting rules applied to all using 3+ weapons.
Actually almost all monster with spell like abilities do that.
They get the spells without any "explanation" of how they get them.
By your logic it is a common ability so everyone get it. Instead it is a specific ability put in in the statblock without explanation.
False.
That would be the Spell-like Abilities Universal Monster Rule.
EVERYTHING in a Bestiary stat block is explained by rules somewhere. Errors happen, but major features do not just 'appear' without any foundation or explanation.
Yeah I think an extra attack PER arm is a bit extreme. adding one additional attack per feat seems like the way to go. would be cool to have a proper ruling on it though
Well, having multiple arms is extremely powerful in this game.
It's why I'm always baffled to hear so many GMs happily allow someone to play a Kasatha in their game.
Yeah I think an extra attack PER arm is a bit extreme. adding one additional attack per feat seems like the way to go. would be cool to have a proper ruling on it thoughWell, having multiple arms is extremely powerful in this game.
It's why I'm always baffled to hear so many GMs happily allow someone to play a Kasatha in their game.
Well like Fretgod pointed out earlier its not that hard to already pull of 3 natural attacks on a lot of base pc races, Which if they all come in primary is beastly over even 4 weapons at a -2 right out the gate which all have to be bought and enchanted individually.
And the standardized rule is printed in the Universal Monster Rules section of the bestiary, while the creature get simply a mention of the ability.
Eventually we get enough monsters with a certain ability (such as swallow whole) that it becomes standardizedSo if a whole lot of monsters with extra arms can all use extra manufactured weapons to attack, they are no longer breaking the rules. They are following a new standardized rule.
Some might argue that the Multiweapon Fighting Feat is precisely that rule.
Well like Fretgod pointed out earlier its not that hard to already pull of 3 natural attacks on a lot of base pc races, Which if they all come in primary is beastly over even 4 weapons at a -2 right out the gate which all have to be bought and enchanted individually.Yeah I think an extra attack PER arm is a bit extreme. adding one additional attack per feat seems like the way to go. would be cool to have a proper ruling on it thoughWell, having multiple arms is extremely powerful in this game.
It's why I'm always baffled to hear so many GMs happily allow someone to play a Kasatha in their game.
Yup. While natural attack builds lose steam after mid game, they are unquestionably superior early and at the very worst on pair for a while after that. Plus, while buying an Amulet of Might fists exceeds the cost of buying one or even two magic weapons (depending), it is certainly cheaper than buying three or four. So balance can't really be the chief concern.
|
|
Actually almost all monster with spell like abilities do that.
They get the spells without any "explanation" of how they get them.
By your logic it is a common ability so everyone get it. Instead it is a specific ability put in in the statblock without explanation.False.
That would be the Spell-like Abilities Universal Monster Rule.
EVERYTHING in a Bestiary stat block is explained by rules somewhere. Errors happen, but major features do not just 'appear' without any foundation or explanation.
Incorrect, the universal rule say how it work, not why or how the creature get it. The creature get is for creator fiat. No other reason.
Some might argue that the Multiweapon Fighting Feat is precisely that rule.
That is a more honest counter argument, but the Multiweapon Fighting Feat change the modifier you apply when fighting with 3 or more manufactured weapons. It don't grant the attacks.
|
|
Arcane strike:Yup. While natural attack builds lose steam after mid game, they are unquestionably superior early and at the very worst on pair for a while after that. Plus, while buying an Amulet of Might fists exceeds the cost of buying one or even two magic weapons (depending), it is certainly cheaper than buying three or four. So balance can't really be the chief concern.Well like Fretgod pointed out earlier its not that hard to already pull of 3 natural attacks on a lot of base pc races, Which if they all come in primary is beastly over even 4 weapons at a -2 right out the gate which all have to be bought and enchanted individually.Yeah I think an extra attack PER arm is a bit extreme. adding one additional attack per feat seems like the way to go. would be cool to have a proper ruling on it thoughWell, having multiple arms is extremely powerful in this game.
It's why I'm always baffled to hear so many GMs happily allow someone to play a Kasatha in their game.
Benefit: As a swift action, you can imbue your weapons with a fraction of your power. For 1 round, your weapons deal +1 damage and are treated as magic for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. For every five caster levels you possess, this bonus increases by +1, to a maximum of +5 at 20th level.
If you are an arcane spellcaster at the expense of 1 feat and one swift action every round all your weapons become magical and get from +1 to +5 to damage. Not bad.
A few level 3 pearls of power and a friend with greater magic weapon.
Probably there are other options beside those.
Maybe even 2 two handed weapons instead of 4 one handed (but that will generate problems with the hand of effort and applicable strength bonus FAQs).
BTW, we really need an explanation about what is the maximum applicable strength bonus to damage for creatures with more than 2 hands of weapon attacks.
Almost certainly it is 1+1/2 for each off hand, but it is another gray area.
|
|
Incorrect, the universal rule say how it work, not why or how the creature get it. The creature get is for creator fiat. No other reason.
Ooookkaaaayyy.... but descending to that new level of pedantry doesn't change anything. We can equally say that it is "creator fiat" which gives creatures three or more arms... the Multiweapon Fighting rule 'merely' explains "how it work [sic]".
The salient fact remains that there is always an explanation of how things work.
That is a more honest counter argument, but the Multiweapon Fighting Feat change the modifier you apply when fighting with 3 or more manufactured weapons. It don't grant the attacks.
Correct. The MWF feat does not grant the attacks. Rather, the attacks are automatically available to any creature with 3+ arms as stated in the 'Normal' condition.
BTW, we really need an explanation about what is the maximum applicable strength bonus to damage for creatures with more than 2 hands of weapon attacks.
Almost certainly it is 1+1/2 for each off hand, but it is another gray area.
I paid attention to this while reviewing the other standards for creatures with 3+ weapon attacks and generally it is what I expected;
Melee/thrown attacks using a primary hand get 1x Strength bonus to damage
Melee/thrown attacks using an off-hand get 0.5x Strength bonus to damage
Melee/thrown attacks using two hands get 1.5x Strength bonus to damage, even if both are off-hands
Projectile weapon attacks get 1x Strength bonus IF the weapon allows this (e.g. Composite bows)
So, basically... the same rules that apply to FEWER than 3 weapon attacks. Obviously, there are also feats and special abilities that modify some of these.
The only discrepancy I found to the above were a couple cases (e.g. Xill) of off-hand attacks getting the full strength bonus to damage without any clear foundation. Since this was in a small minority of cases I suspect it is simply an error.
Also, the 'two-handed weapon in two off-hands' and 'projectile weapons in more than two hands' situations were rare enough that they might be considered 'unique'... except that they seemed to follow the normal rules for any other two-handed or projectile weapon situation.
End result: There don't seem to be any 'special' rules for damage bonuses on manufactured weapons in 3+ arms. Just the same rules used for the same weapons in one or two arms.