|
This one has me wondering...:
Okay, PC has Dwarf Boulder helm, a natural bite attack, and two melee weapons (short swords).
With a full attack or charge, as a level 1 PC, how does this work?
I've been under the impression that he can only choose to wield 2 in a given round, despite having 4 valid attack options. Am I allowed to swing will all 4, just at massive penalty?
|
|
So how does multi-weapon fighting fit in all that?
I mean, yeah, the head isn't an arm, but it's an additional limb with a weapon on it. No different from a hook hand mounted onto the stump of the wrist...
I've never been clear on the PF stance regarding "hands" and the ability to attack. Seems like you should be able to attempt an attack with each weapon you've got equipped, even if at massive penalty.
And I'm unclear on the secondary vs primary natural attack. Can you just pick which you use one as, or does it have to specify itself as one or the other?
Well if them implied usage of the extra arms is correct and you now have x-1 off hands where x is the number of usable hands, then you could make x-1 off hand attacks of any fashion. The next question that would need to be answered is how this would in fact interact with the ruling on 2HW and TWF. Does having extra hands give extra hands of effort thus allowing for a 4 armed race to make a 2hw attack with a follow up off-hand/hands or even TWF with two 2HWs?
And as I've said, I believe the rules support is absolutely there to allow the attacks. It's just not explicit.Say, "ambiguous", rather than "not explicit" and we'd agree.
That is, it seems to me that the game developers wrote things which they intended to be clear / 'explicit' statements that extra arms give extra off-hands which can be used to make extra attacks (at specified penalties). This isn't something which has to be cobbled together with potentially unconnected bits from multiple sources... there are places where this rule IS directly / explicitly stated.
The problem is that none of those places is unambiguously written. It is possible to interpret each of them, in isolation, as meaning something else (though I find those interpretations implausible).
Again, not that I disagree with you, but "not explicit" is, by definition, ambiguous.
Ambiguous means open to interpretation.
Explicit means stated openly, leaving no room for doubt. Or, literally, unambiguous.
Well if them implied usage of the extra arms is correct and you now have x-1 off hands where x is the number of usable hands, then you could make x-1 off hand attacks of any fashion. The next question that would need to be answered is how this would in fact interact with the ruling on 2HW and TWF. Does having extra hands give extra hands of effort thus allowing for a 4 armed race to make a 2hw attack with a follow up off-hand/hands or even TWF with two 2HWs?
That's always a question that pops up in these threads as well. If the reasoning behind no TWF+THW has to do with metaphorical hands of effort, then more hands provide more effort, so to speak.
The thoughts on this seem to boil down to two camps:
1. You can TWF with THWs because four hands. One hand does 1.5 STR damage, one does 1.0 STR damage (because two off-hands) - however, due to the wording of Power Attack, both benefit from 1.5 PA bonus.
2. You cannot TWF with THWs because using a THW requires the use of a main hand and you have, at most, one of those. This leaves open the ability to TWF with a single THW and one or more one-handed or light weapons, but you cannot use more than one THW.
You could also use a THW and a shield without having to resort to quick draw shenanigans. Or THW/OHW TWF and use a shield, etc.
Again though, this is basically an unanswerable question without any developer clarification, like a great deal of the MWF quagmire.
I agree just like you said it pops up.
I'm going to go back to homebrew and repost this in Leveled Mutations.
Three Weapon Fighting.
Prereq. Two weapon fighting. Third arm and hand.
The third arm and hand is useable for an off hand weapon. This might replace two weapon fighting, only for fighters of any kind.
Normal. If someone with 3 arms and hands tries to use 3 weapons in combat, the third weapon cannot hit anything.
Errata: Using a two handed weapon such as a bow or greatsword, and a one handed weapon, counts as a third weapon. You can still use 2 handed weapons without 2 weapon fighting.
Four Weapon Fighting.
Prereq. Three weapon fighting. Fourth arm and hand.
The fourth arm and hand is useable for an off hand weapon. This might replace three weapon fighting, only for fighters of any kind.
Normal. If someone with 4 arms and hands tries to use 4 weapons in combat, the fourth weapon cannot hit anything.
Errata: Using a two handed weapon such as a bow or greatsword, and two one handed weapons, counts as a third and fourth weapon. You can still use 2 handed weapons without 2 weapon fighting, but without the feats, you cannot use a second 2 handed weapon, such as a bow.
Further notes: 3 armed weaponless combat is a different feat, that can only replace normal unarmed combat for Monks and Brawlers. 5 and 6 armed combat can be extrapolated from 3 and 4 armed combat.
|
Just keep this little nugget in mind...
A character will never get more than a combined 1.5 times str damage in an attack sequence. If you are, then something is being done wrong.
barring any feats or class abilities that would allow it, Two Weapon Fighting will not include Two Handed Weapons. If they were included in some way, they would be (1) the main weapon (2) at 1.0 times str. (doesn't matter how many arm a character has)
Thus far, there is no feat/ability that I know that would allow for the use of a Two Handed Weapon in Two Weapon Fighting. (There is the double wielding bow archtype mentioned earlier in the thread.)
That includes the often debated Thunder and Fang feat, which allows for the use of Thunder (Earthbreaker) and Fang (Klar) together with TWF and keeping the shield bonus of the Klar.
The "camp" that is allowing two Two Handed Weapons when Two Weapon Fighting is going into house rule territory. (Which is likely where the Race would be played, in a home campaign, as it is unlikely we will see a Race Boon for it in Society play) I think a Kobold Race Boon is more likely to be forthcoming than the four armed one.
|
|
A character will never get more than a combined 1.5 times str damage in an attack sequence. If you are, then something is being done wrong.
Got a source for that? Because there are dozens of examples which contradict it. Even dropping all the natural weapon and mixed manufactured/natural weapon examples... all of the 4+ manufactured weapon (and some of the 3 and even 2 manufactured weapon) examples contradict it.
barring any feats or class abilities that would allow it, Two Weapon Fighting will not include Two Handed Weapons.
Xill get the same double bow option as the Kasatha Bow Nomad without any specific feat or ability allowing it. Xill Matriarch gets it and an iterative attack on the 'off-hands' bow from ITWF. All three are getting 2x total strength bonus (i.e. greater than the 1.5x 'limit')... and from just two weapons.
The Lhaksharut (B2), Sahuagin Champion (Monster Codex), Sahuagin Prince (Monster Codex), and Upasunda (B3) all use a single two-handed weapon in combination with other melee and/or natural weapon attacks. None have a feat or other ability specifically allowing this. All have more than 1.5x cumulative strength bonus to damage.
If they were included in some way, they would be (1) the main weapon (2) at 1.0 times str. (doesn't matter how many arm a character has)
All examples of two-handed melee weapons being wielded by 3+ armed creatures get 1.5x strength bonus to damage... including the Upasunda from B3 which wields a spear in two off-hands... so not the main weapon in that example, and never 1x strength.
In short, I do not think the rules work the way you think they do. Rather, it seems that there is no 'limit' on cumulative strength bonuses to damage... nor any restriction on using two-handed weapons in Two-Weapon fighting (or Multiweapon Fighting) if the creature has enough arms to do so. So far as I know, no rules establishing either of those restrictions exist... which is why all examples instead follow the normal/existing rules for strength bonuses to damage and fighting with two or more weapons.
|
|
Monsters do not always follow the guidelines for normal characters. They should, perhaps, but sometimes authors aren't great at writing up creatures properly to make their options perfectly legal.
Mistakes happen. However, there are a few problems here;
1: None of the 'guidelines' thaX is talking about are actually written down anywhere that I am aware of.
2: These 'guidelines' are themselves changes to the rules for normal characters. (e.g. two-handed weapons normally get 1.5x strength damage, limiting that to 1x strength and/or capping total from all attacks at 1.5x strength would be DIFFERENT from 'normal character rules')
3: All known examples, including examples of PC playable races, contradict these 'guidelines'.
When all examples follow reasonable readings of the written rules I find it hard to believe they are 'mistakenly not following unwritten exceptions to the rules'.
Devs have further clarified in posts that creatures are generally permitted a single offhand attack.
As I read it, they have rather said that you cannot make an off-hand attack (e.g. with armor spikes) if you don't have an unused off-hand. For two handed creatures that works out to the same thing... but for creatures with 3+ hands it is different.
Thus, how many hands a creature possesses actually has little to do with how many offhand attacks they can make.
The Multiweapon Fighting rules say of creatures with 3+ hands, "It has one primary hand, and all the others are off hands."
That seems pretty clear to me that how many hands a creature possesses has A LOT to do with how many off hand attacks they can make.
Indeed, a creature with only one or even zero hands is still allowed to make an offhand attack if they have an appropriate weapon with which to do so.
Creatures which have lost an off hand may still make an off hand attack with a weapon that doesn't actually use their hand... this is really no different than allowing them to make an off hand attack with such a weapon when their actual hand is occupied (e.g. holding a potion)... the hand is just ALWAYS occupied for the creature that has lost it.
|
|
2. I'm having trouble understanding your example. A character using a two-handed weapon does 1.5x strength damage. A character two-weapon fighting received 1x strength on their primary attack and 0.5x strength on their offhand attack, totaling 1.5x strength. This total modifier being the same is what we're referring to.
thaX said that a two-handed weapon wielded along with another weapon (ergo, requiring 3+ hands) would give only a 1x strength bonus. Normally two-handed weapons give a 1.5x strength bonus. Ergo, thaX's 'guideline' on this is a change to the normal rules for characters... which isn't actually written anywhere in the rules. Ditto the 1.5x strength 'cap'. You are calling it a 'starting point', but thaX stated that there could never be more than that... which is again nowhere stated and contradicted by dozens of examples, including PC playable races with 3+ attacks (e.g. two hands and a natural attack).
3. See above. All known examples of PC playable races adhere to this general rule, barring special feats, abilities, or class features.
Kasatha and any PC with an 'extra arm' from the Mutant template are examples of PC playable races which do NOT adhere to these 'rules'... which again are not written anywhere and thus not rules IMO.
Now, the Kasatha "Multi-Armed" ability and the change from the template itself might be taken as the 'features' which allow these things... but then you're really just saying that these are how the general rules work out for creatures with only two melee weapon attacks.
By the way, you are misquoting the Multi-weapon fighting feat.
Given that the text I quoted does indeed appear there (and was repeated verbatim by you), "misquoting" is the wrong word. I'll assume you mean 'misinterpreting'.
This confusing state of affairs exists because this feat was created before Pathfinder clarified and codified what offhand attacks actually are. In simpler, earlier, versions of the game system physical hands and offhands were equivalent. Things have changed since then.
I see nothing confusing and nothing changed... hands are still hands by all text, examples, and logic. The only 'alteration' is the codification of certain things that 'use up' an off-hand attack without actually involving hands (e.g. attacks with armor spikes).
Which is why some of the mentioned creature's stat blocks don't actually match what they should technically be able to do if following proper character-based rules.
All.
It is not "some" stat blocks. It is all of them. They all follow the same rules... which ARE the "proper character-based rules" so far as I can see;
PCs & NPCs can both wield two-handed weapons in any two free hands
PCs & NPCs both always get a 1.5x strength bonus to damage with two-handed melee weapons
PCs & NPCs both have one primary hand and all others are off hands
PCs & NPCs both can use weapons in all of their hands
Et cetera
There is one consistent set of rules, which applies to both PCs and NPCs, and which matches every stat block of this type barring a handful of minor errors (with the few I've seen actually allowing HIGHER strength and/or attack bonuses).
If you believe it is only "some" stat blocks... can you cite even one which imposes ANY of the special limits in thaX's post?
Additional off hand attacks are disputed, require feats and monster abilities, to make full use of additional arms and hands.
"Nobody said this was easy, nobody said this would be so hard."
I don't want a game session to screech to a halt while two people argue weather a marilith or half marilith can use 3 swords at once.
Additional off hand attacks are disputed, require feats and monster abilities, to make full use of additional arms and hands.
"Nobody said this was easy, nobody said this would be so hard."
I don't want a game session to screech to a halt while two people argue weather a marilith or half marilith can use 3 swords at once.
Always clear your characters with the GM first. This is true whether it's a standard build using core rules or something fanciful. But particularly if you're using odd builds, races, classes, items, etc. that do or allow things not common to the game, it is absolutely necessary to discuss how things will work with your GM first.
So the times a game comes screeching to a halt because of something like this should be slim to none. If your GM is not on board with your build, do not use it. If your GM is on board with your build, there should be very few, if any, problems.
|
|
To look beyond the rules for a moment, when the creature/character is using a Two Handed Weapon (with "both" hands, Main and Off Hand), he is concentrating all that momentum of the weapon's swing on that weapon. This is why he is getting a bit more damage (1.5 str mod) than when he wields a weapon one handed.
To try and wield that Two Handed Weapon with a second off hand weapon means that part of that momentum is taken with a concentrated effort to wield the second weapon. (whether that be a two handed weapon and armor spikes, or a light weapon in a third hand) The main purpose to doing this is that the bigger weapon tends to do more damage, not to apply the additional momentum and add a bit of damage on top.
I did mention the double wielding of Bows, as the new four arm race in Beastiary (4?) does have an archtype allowing him to do this. With quickdraw, he can hold the bows in two offhands as he is force into melee with two weapons. Nice having multiple arms.
Now, the rules written in various books that are not Bestiaries follow some tenents and guidelines. One of those was referenced in a FAQ, the subject of our little conversation. To wit - a character will have, at most, only 1.5 times str mod in damage when attacking.
Power Attack and several other things raise that up a bit, but it isn't because someone has more than two arms/hands.
EDIT ... btw, Thunder and Fang was re-written to take away this very exploit of 1.5 str Thunder with the .5 (1.0?) Fang use. The weapon is used one handed just for effects that set damage. (still a two handed weapon otherwise) 1.0 str mod, +2 for each -1 for Power Attack and so on...
I will have to scour the thread with that ruling but I do believe that one of the devs chimed in that this ruling was based around the assumption of a 2 handed race not those with more than that.
What self respecting player who sees a Marilith using 5 swords at once isn't going to start demanding their character be able to do that? The next adventure path they will not roll up a character till they can roll up one that has multiple arms that can use weapons.
"Tears down the walls of your fools paradise." At some point The Rules and Because I'm the GM are not enough anymore. I know I play this game because I can do anything or better than the bad guys can. Trying to take something else away from the fighters is not going to make you any friends.
I realize, not all of you are saying multi armed, multi weaponed PCs are bad wrong fun, but some are. If you want me I'll be back in the homebrew board. I'll check in occasionally to see if the rest of you are willing to consider "Yes, but it will cost the PCs a feat or class tax." as an answer to the OPs question.
Nobody ever threatened to force this on the PFS.
|
|
Now, the rules written in various books that are not Bestiaries follow some tenents and guidelines. One of those was referenced in a FAQ, the subject of our little conversation. To wit - a character will have, at most, only 1.5 times str mod in damage when attacking.
Until someone can actually cite this supposed FAQ I will continue to believe that it is either being badly misrepresented or does not exist at all.
In any case, this claim of a 1.5x strength mod 'cap' on damage bonuses is contradicted by every character (i.e. PC or NPC) with 3+ attacks and a few with 2 attacks.
I'll check in occasionally to see if the rest of you are willing to consider "Yes, but it will cost the PCs a feat or class tax." as an answer to the OPs question.
Technically, NO there isn't any feat or class tax involved with getting melee weapon attacks from 3+ arms... it is automatic with HAVING the arms. However, if you want to do so effectively (i.e. without large attack penalties) then you need the Multiweapon Fighting feat (or some similar special ability).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The hands of effort is also speaking as SKR repeatedly said about Standard PC races.
Proof that monsters do in fact have rules and aren't just put together at a whim.
Now, the rules written in various books that are not Bestiaries follow some tenents and guidelines. One of those was referenced in a FAQ, the subject of our little conversation. To wit - a character will have, at most, only 1.5 times str mod in damage when attacking.Until someone can actually cite this supposed FAQ I will continue to believe that it is either being badly misrepresented or does not exist at all.
In any case, this claim of a 1.5x strength mod 'cap' on damage bonuses is contradicted by every character (i.e. PC or NPC) with 3+ attacks and a few with 2 attacks.
Any strength based character using Double Slice
Any strength based character using Double SliceNow, the rules written in various books that are not Bestiaries follow some tenents and guidelines. One of those was referenced in a FAQ, the subject of our little conversation. To wit - a character will have, at most, only 1.5 times str mod in damage when attacking.Until someone can actually cite this supposed FAQ I will continue to believe that it is either being badly misrepresented or does not exist at all.
In any case, this claim of a 1.5x strength mod 'cap' on damage bonuses is contradicted by every character (i.e. PC or NPC) with 3+ attacks and a few with 2 attacks.
Also see this with Jason pointing out that some races might not adhere to the 1.5str issue.
Basicly the 1.5x str was a thing for the standard assumption of the game which might be modifed.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the record, I believe this post is the basis for the supposed '1.5x str bonus damage cap FAQ' claim.
The only problems are that it is not a FAQ and specifically says that it only applies to a "1st-level standard-race PC".
A few posts further down the thread SKR gets annoyed at someone bringing up a Tengu bite attack as an 'exception' because Tengu are not a "standard-race PC". I think it is clear that Kasatha would not be either.
In short, the supposed cap is simply the result of applying the normal rules to a creature (including all of the PC playable races from the Core rulebook and MOST, but not all, of those potentially allowed by other sources) which only GETS the equivalent of one primary hand attack and one off hand attack (i.e. including two-hand attacks which use both and weapons like armor spikes that require an off hand attack despite not using any hands). Two armed creatures with no natural weapon attacks.
Even shorter: It is entirely irrelevant to Multiweapon Fighting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will have to scour the thread with that ruling but I do believe that one of the devs chimed in that this ruling was based around the assumption of a 2 handed race not those with more than that.
As you and CB have noted, that is correct. Just like the CRB assumes single-class characters when laying out its rules within classes, etc., the rules regarding PCs (including clarifications, FAQs, etc.) tend to presume standard PC races.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The hands of effort is also speaking as SKR repeatedly said about Standard PC races.
Proof that monsters do in fact have rules and aren't just put together at a whim.
The nice thing about that quote and a couple that pretty quickly follow is that we have a game developer and former member of the PDT explicitly saying that some of the rules and restrictions are left up to inference.
That was a major bone of contention in this and, particularly, The other thread referenced earlier that gave rise to this one. It was argued that if it isn't explicitly written, it's not a rule. And drawing a conclusion about the existence of a rule by implication is "making things up".
Going to link and quote the original FaQ post for vestigal arms.
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."
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.
.
Looking over this again it really looks like the PRD wanted to clarify that these options were differing from the norm and not meant to grant extra attacks that picking up a limb would grant. They did day it would be powerful for a low-level pc but this was at a time when most PC races were around 10 Race builder points not a 20.
It is most certainly not a suggestion that you can make up rules as to what actions a character is allowed to take. "A 1 cr monster shouldn't have 500 hp" is not the same thing as "I get an extra attack because I have an extra arm, even though theres no rule that allows it."
You keep saying that relying on implication is "making things up". That's not the way logical inference works.
And again, if you think the thought process is as simple as you state it, there's no point in furthering this discussion. I get that you think it doesn't count if it's not explicit.
Merriam-Webster's Pocket Dictionary says"vestige n a visible trace or remains--vestigial adj." So a vestigial arm is just the appearance of an arm.
If a PC has an actual extra functional arm there should be rules for them to use it in combat. Monsters have a trait that allows them to wield more than 2 weapons, so characters should have a feat or class ability to use any functional extra arms they have.
A lot depends on where the extra arm comes from. Are rules included for making the vestigial arm an actual arm? If not, maybe the arm was never intended to be fully functional.
If the character gains extra limbs from a bloodline, mutation, or other source, there should be rules from that source. If not, then you have to go homebrew. As I mentioned before, very unlikely with Pathfinder Society. If they include extra arms, they would probably include rules for them to function.
I'll have to look back over this topic again to see if the OP provided any more details.
Monsters don't have a trait for that, they have abilities that modify how those attacks work but nothing in a monsters stat block or the UMR says anything about how those arms work.
I have the Advanced Race Guide. Multi armed grants off hand attacks for the extra arm, but you can only take that twice. The Advanced Race Guide came out of Pathfinder, so I'm treating that as official.
Vestigial arms are like the Grappling Appendages, so I think you can use them thusly. Otherwise, a vestigial arm would be like an arm growing out of your back that can't even hold a weapon. It's just a defect. I guess you could have it removed to use for producing a clone. I don't have Bestiary 5. Is that where this vestigial arm is?
A member of this race can wield multiple weapons, but only one hand is it's primary hand, and all others are off hands.
Basicly, if they take 2 weapon fighting, they can use the off hands for secondary attacks. The 8 RP, does that mean all the other characters get 8 extra points in the point buy?
I just downloaded the pdf for Bestiary 5. What am I looking for. Is vestigial arm in there somewhere?
If your tail is holding a shield, how does that not count against surprise attacks?
And the tail cannot use a metamagic rod? It's not a wand. You just have to be holding it. You don't even point it at anything. If you can tear apart the clear cut statement in the Advanced Race Guide, take that scalpel to whatever convinced you that a tail cannot just hold a metamagic rod.
Can you expand on RP Cost? I'm not sure yet.
|
|
I care about proper arguments and rules discussions.
Me too.
Logical inference is making things up.
Actively refusing to use logic is the very opposite of proper argument IMO. Such a course is practically asking for an illogical / incorrect result.
If you want to talk about RAI, I fully accept that there is a school of thought that the RAI indicates that there should be a rule to allow the attacks and that its nonexistence is an oversight. I don't agree with the interpretation, and feel that the lack of a multiweapon fighting rule is intentional, but recognize that the argument can be made.
I don't believe a single person has made ANY of those arguments.
Rather... there IS a multiweapon fighting rule. Craftily hidden under... Multiweapon Fighting.
"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. One extra attack per extra arm. RAW.
Logic would then dictate looking at evidence... where we find that every single creature wielding 3+ weapons in every Bestiary, AP, module, and other Paizo product follows this rule. No separate ability (other than the Kasatha Multi-Armed ability, which you also dismiss) is EVER given to explain these extra attacks. All exactly match the RAW interpretation of MWF and TWF given above. Evidence. Logic.
In this case, RAW is clear (no MWF for PCs)
Great. Please quote that clearly written rule.