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.
But remember, one side of this argument is that said attacks are already granted implicitly by the rules. Hence this discussion. I've long been open about the fact that there is no explicit answer given directly in the rules, but that I think the intended answer is directly inferrable from what is in the rules.
Ultimately, neither side will be satisfied at this point without developer commentary. I've said as much in every thread on this issue I've commented on. Regardless, I do think the weight of evidence favors granting the attacks.
At least it seems in this run we for the most part understand what the other sides argument is instead of everyone missing each others point and causing things to escalate.
Though I am going to flat out say it again disagreements or no. Creatures written out for Bestiaries always have changes to the rules explained somewhere if its specific to the monster in question then it goes in the stat block if it applies to a variety of creatures and bears explanation then its a universal monster rule. But nothing gets rules changes unexplained they list them somewhere. Now understand rules changes have the changes explained not the fluff of why a creature can do X.
|
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.
Normal: 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. (It has one primary hand, and all the others are off hands.) See Two-Weapon Fighting in the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook.
Nothing stated here about automatically getting 3+ attacks.
False premise, so wrong conclusions.
But remember, one side of this argument is that said attacks are already granted implicitly by the rules. Hence this discussion. I've long been open about the fact that there is no explicit answer given directly in the rules, but that I think the intended answer is directly inferrable from what is in the rules.
Ultimately, neither side will be satisfied at this point without developer commentary. I've said as much in every thread on this issue I've commented on. Regardless, I do think the weight of evidence favors granting the attacks.
Against an honest reply: "granted implicitly".
You see the difference between you and CBDunkerson is that he pretend that they are granted explicitly.I disagree that they are granted implicitly to all races with 3+ hands, I agree that the examples are in favor of those races generally getting 3+ armed attacks, but, with different degrees of motivation some race don't get them. so we can't infer a general rule.
I would like a general rule? Yes.
It existed in 3.5? Yes
It disappeared in the 3.5 SRD and in Pathfinder? Again yes.
To me it seem that adding (rephrased to avoid copyright infringement) it would have been simple. But it wasn't done.
So for now there is no explicit permission and that is required at least for PC races.
|
|
At least it seems in this run we for the most part understand what the other sides argument is instead of everyone missing each others point and causing things to escalate.
Though I am going to flat out say it again disagreements or no. Creatures written out for Bestiaries always have changes to the rules explained somewhere if its specific to the monster in question then it goes in the stat block if it applies to a variety of creatures and bears explanation then its a universal monster rule. But nothing gets rules changes unexplained they list them somewhere. Now understand rules changes have the changes explained not the fluff of why a creature can do X.
It was a specific reply to a specific argument:
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 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.
Samasboy1 is arguing that several monster with 3+ hands wielding 3+ weapons make it a standardized rule.
My counter argument was that several monster getting ability x make it a standard rule that is explained in the Universal Monster Rules.The UMR explain how an ability work, but they don't give it to monsters. Including the ability in the monster description give it to the monster.
Let's take Swallow Whole as an example:
Swallow Whole (Ex) If a creature with this special attack begins its turn with an opponent grappled in its mouth (see Grab), it can attempt a new combat maneuver check (as though attempting to pin the opponent).
The bolded part mean that every creature with a mouth get swallow whole? No.
To get it you need Swallow Whole as one of the creature abilities.Fake ability to make more than 2 armed attacks: a creature with this special ability get has many armed attack as it has hands.
That would be a standardized rule giving a creature as many armed attack as it has hands, if the creature has "Fake ability to make more than 2 armed attacks" as an ability.
Without that standard rule we only have the statbolocks in the bestiary. If the appropriate statblock don't mention more that 1 or 2 armed attacks it don't get them, unless the creature itself has a special ability that supersede that.
If the statblock mention more than 2 attacks it get them.
|
|
You see the difference between you and CBDunkerson is that he pretend that they are granted explicitly.
I am not pretending. I believe the extra attacks are granted explicitly.
"Normal: 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. (It has one primary hand, and all the others are off hands.) See Two-Weapon Fighting in the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook."
"Two-Weapon Fighting
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon."
MWF says you get one off hand per arm over the first and then directs to the TWF rules, which say that when wielding a weapon in an off hand you get an extra attack with that weapon. Explicit.
Throw in the Multi-Armed trait in the ARG, the Multi-Armed ability of the Kasatha, numerous Bestiary entries following this standard, numerous examples of individual creatures wielding more weapons than their Bestiary entries ALSO following this standard, no examples contradicting this standard, and the absence of any other explanation being given for various multi-weapon attacks... and I'd be "pretending" if I said I thought there was any doubt at all.
At least it seems in this run we for the most part understand what the other sides argument is instead of everyone missing each others point and causing things to escalate.
Though I am going to flat out say it again disagreements or no. Creatures written out for Bestiaries always have changes to the rules explained somewhere if its specific to the monster in question then it goes in the stat block if it applies to a variety of creatures and bears explanation then its a universal monster rule. But nothing gets rules changes unexplained they list them somewhere. Now understand rules changes have the changes explained not the fluff of why a creature can do X.
It was a specific reply to a specific argument:
Samasboy1 is arguing that several monster with 3+ hands wielding 3+...
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 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.
Diego thats my point if it was a difference in how the rules work its explained somewhere. If its how the rules work then its not. We don't need a UMR for how monsters get feats Because the follow standard progression for HD. We don't need a rule saying a Monster can put ranks in a skill because its how the rules work. The argument is that since its not called out as differing from the standard rules it must in fact be the standard rules.
|
|
Diego thats my point if it was a difference in how the rules work its explained somewhere. If its how the rules work then its not. We don't need a UMR for how monsters get feats Because the follow standard progression for HD. We don't need a rule saying a Monster can put ranks in a skill because its how the rules work. The argument is that since its not called out as differing from the standard rules it must in fact be the standard rules.And the standard rules say
Two-Weapon Fighting
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways. First, if your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light. Second, the Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6.
You can read it as "each of your off hand(s[/]" or as "your [i]single off hand." Hence this discussion.
We know that some Bestiary (sorry, but I don't think that AP/modules creatures are checked as thoroughly as bestiary creatures and generally they aren't errated if there is some error) creature don't use all of its off hands (granted, several do) so it is difficult to agree on what is standard.
It is only "fluff" that make the difference? Insufficient WBL for full equipment? Lack of permission? Balance?
My opinion is that NPCs get permission by their statblock, PCs need a specific rule.
Obviously others don't agree.
I do understand you point Diego and enjoy discussions with you even when we don't agree on every point.
|
|
I know that sometime I am too forceful and extremist in expressing my opinions, especially when I feel the other party isn't trying to find a agreeable mid point with gray rules like this one, so I wanted to make my opinion reasonably clear.
I know that some people find "PCs and NPCs don't follow exactly the same rules" anathema, but this is one of the examples where I think it should be applied.
The thing with that is in my opinion that following that logic we might need to re-evalutate the race cost of a multi-limbed. I feel the high cost is in part due to extra attacks gained, I understand that having the free hand for reloading purposes or holding a shield is a boost but is it worth twice as much as prehensile tail if it has the same ability with the only bonus being to have a spare weapon in hand?
In fact I should have noticed and brought that up before prehensile tail seems to be exactly what your side wants Multi-armed to be plus the ability to actually use a weapon in the hand but no extra attacks. Now is that really worth 2 more race points just to have an extra weapon held in hand that you might have a need to use.
|
|
The thing with that is in my opinion that following that logic we might need to re-evalutate the race cost of a multi-limbed. I feel the high cost is in part due to extra attacks gained, I understand that having the free hand for reloading purposes or holding a shield is a boost but is it worth twice as much as prehensile tail if it has the same ability with the only bonus being to have a spare weapon in hand?
In fact I should have noticed and brought that up before prehensile tail seems to be exactly what your side wants Multi-armed to be plus the ability to actually use a weapon in the hand but no extra attacks. Now is that really worth 2 more race points just to have an extra weapon held in hand that you might have a need to use.
A extra arm is a bit more. If it has claws you can make natural attacks as secondary attacks (yes, it can seem hypocritical, but I feel that the limitation is for armed attacks only) together with armed attacks. You can use shields for defense (but the number of armed attacks is still limited), you can wield wands and use them as you can switch you "primary hand" as needed, you can have a different weapon in each hand and change what pair you use every round (an example is reach weapon plus 2 non reach weapon: all would threaten as all can attack) and so on. You are more options than the prehensile tail.
Personally I don't like the race builder as it can easily be used to create unbalanced monstrosities and even some featured races seem off key balance wise.
It is one of those GM instruments that should stay out of the hands of the players.
*Grabs flamethrower* just in case, just in case.