Just not in the exact wording that you demand.
Pick up a thesaurus. Every meaning has multiple words.
You're down on inference and assumptions.
Would you game with someone who challenged everything the GM said with,"Is it really a goat? It could be a monster, construct, illusion, or polymorphed princess." Most of the time you can assume it's just a goat!
If something says you can wield a weapon in that hand, and you can use additional weapons in your off hands, who cares if it doesn't use certain words?
For explaining the issue above we have 2 things we have the rules for TWF which only allow 1 off hand attack and we have the 2h/2wf ruling with covers what a standard pc race can do. A standard race has 1.5x str worth of hands of effort. When a standard race TWF it has one off hand listed.
With a non-standard race we have no direct rules but we have inferences. Most statted multi-limbed monsters who use manufactured weapons are shown to have cabibility to use the extra arms without issue or special ability to allow it. We have a feat that points out that extra limbs are off-hands in difference to the normal look of just one off-hand listed.(ability to be used as an off hand and being an off-hand are different.) And other hand granting abilities pointing out they don't grant extra attacks and being pointed out to be this working this way instead of a general ruling of extra limbs don't grant extra attacks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, it is how it works. Pathfinder literally cant work any other way.
Pathfinder doesn't work if you limit everything to the most literal reading of the words on the page and eschew common sense, reason, and logical analysis. So no, it decidedly does not work that way. Not only is intelligent reading required to competently understand the rules and play the game, the designer's expect us to use common sense when doing so. Additionally, the designer's also recognize that there actually isn't an explicit rule for everything and every situation. They expect us to be able to fill in the gaps using common sense and logic. Note that they don't tell us to just "make up" whatever we want.
SKR in particular was very open about the design process. He's left a number of helpful posts when these sorts of discussions came up in the past.
But, as Monte says, "the DM is not a robot." Players aren't robots, either. And as James Wyatt says, "You can never write a rule that is so clear that *everyone* understands it." Skip Williams used to get Sage Advice questions like, "Do I have to take Power Attack before I take Cleave?" Obviously the answer is "yes"... but it wasn't obvious to that reader, for some reason. Now, that's a very simplistic example, and the "channel energy class feature" prereq is not a simplistic example, but I think you get the gist of it: sometimes you're going to have to make rulings based on how you think the rules fit together.
I can read a rule and understand how it works. Jason or Stephen can do the same. We talk to each other after our readthroughs to clear up any questions we have. But that still means it's possible for me to read the rule and interpret the answer as "π," and for Jason and Stephen to read the rule and interpret the answer as "22/7." All three of us are right, it's just in some corner cases where the slight differences in our rightness is an issue. Or, to look at it differently, it's possible for all three of us to agree that it's "22/7," and when the book is published have a player point out that using π instead of 22/7 affects things elsewhere in the game.
***
Do I think that most of the rules are clear enough for a typical player? Yes. Do I think that many of them are too wordy and could be written in a more clear and concise manner? Yes. Do I think that confusion about an unclear rule means you're stupid? No. There are unclear rules in the books.
Because the game doesn't have a rule for everything, because it assumes the players have common sense to know that you don't need rules for everything.
Unfortunately, we don't have the option of rewording every single effect in all books in the game to clarify corner cases of how they interact with NEA. GMs will have to use common sense on how to parse the two core elements of NEA
The game assumes the GM can read, can use logic to determine whether or not a character is flanking, how much cover a table provides, monster tactics, and so on. Assuming the GM has common sense allows us to have a 576-page rulebook instead of a 1,200-page rulebook.
There is a HUGE amount of knowledge that the game assumes you know, because knowing that is common sense. For example, the descriptions of the races in the Core Rulebook don't say "humans need air to breathe, humans need food and water, humans need to pee and poop, humans contain blood, humans are alive, humans walk on two legs." You can infer some of those things with other parts of the rules (Suffocation, page 445; Starvation and Thirst, page 444; Injury and Death, page 189) but some of them aren't stated anywhere because it's common sense.
There is a trend in a lot of this commentary. And that trend is that the rules are not written as explicitly and all-encompassing as you seem to think. There is grey area. There is room for ambiguity. There is room for inference. And not only is there room for inference, but the designers of the game expect us to do so. The rules are written expecting us to sometimes have to draw conclusions about rules that aren't explicitly stated. Obviously, that's not always ideal. Despite that, the alternative is far worse:
Otherwise you're asking for a game book that has to spell out every single thing so that the most thick-witted person in the world never has to think at all when running or playing.
*--------------------------------------------------------------*
As for made up you could always cite the other definitions of made up that are equally valid, like I did, that don't have the connotations you are trying to imply.
I used synonyms you have me, so ...
Conjecture/hypothesis/inference are all made up. You have a logical basis for making them up, but that doesn't mean they are real. They may be true, but are not necessarily true. Those are two very different things.
Connotation. Because you keep missing the point.
"Made up" does not, in any way, convey the same meaning as "hypothesis", "conjecture", "logical inference", or "implication". At all.
*--------------------------------------------------------------*
So in summation:
1. The rules do not explicitly cover every situation
2. This is by design
3. You are allowed to draw inferences about implicit rules based upon explicit rules
4. This is also by design
5. The game requires people to read the rules, in context and as a whole, while utilizing common sense and reading analysis
6. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Please learn the difference between RAI and RAW and get back to me.
Also, to those stating arms = attacks, I sure hope you aren't letting any quadruped make unarmed strikes, combat maneuvers, or melee touch attacks.
I've already addressed the RAW/RAI bit. I addressed it less explicitly in my previous post, as well. It does not work the way you think it works, as evidenced by the multitude of developer statements that specifically state it does not work the way you think it works. I shall take the word of one of the core developers of the game over yours.
As to the second bit, also please refer to my previous post. Common sense is a thing that developers expect us to use when reading the rules. There are no concerns raised by your assertion here. Every creature can make those attacks, because we're specifically told so.
Do you not even see the irony in your post?
I mean, quadrupeds aren't standard pcs, so they don't follow the standard pc rules right?
You cant argue that arms=equal attacks if you have more than 2 arms, and then go and say arms don't equal attacks if you have less than 2 arms without being completely hypocritical and obviously wrong.
1. If you really want a standard PC to become a quadruped, the rules do allow it. You just need to make the investment. The option is not race specific.
2. MWF does not grant additional attacks, but having extra hands does, unless the means used to acquire those extra hands specifically bar said action. At least one of the options for gaining additional arms explicitly states those arms are able to wield additional weapons.
Do you not even see the irony in your post?
I mean, quadrupeds aren't standard pcs, so they don't follow the standard pc rules right?
You cant argue that arms=equal attacks if you have more than 2 arms, and then go and say arms don't equal attacks if you have less than 2 arms without being completely hypocritical and obviously wrong.
There isn't any irony. If you're trying to imply that I'm contradicting myself because of the reference to specificity with regard to quadrupeds and these attacks, but then allowing multiple off-hand attacks without specific rules allowing it, you are mistaken.
Remember, I believe (with developer support, mind you) that the rules allow for inference and logical induction to reach conclusions regarding unclear or untended areas of the rules. That we know with specificity that one rule covers a particular thing does not preclude that a lack of such a rule in another area means a different thing is or is not prohibited.
Simply put, the rules make no qualifications with regard to who can make combat maneuvers, unarmed strikes, or melee touch attacks. Nor do they make qualifications with regard to who can TWF. Creatures can simply do it. One need not have any limbs whatsoever to make unarmed strikes, combat maneuver checks, or melee touch attacks. Nor, technically, must one have two limbs, arms or otherwise, to make the extra attack resulting from TWF. That all of this is true, regardless of one's position on the status of PCs' ability to MWF, bears absolutely no impact on the MWF discussion in general.
Please learn the difference between RAI and RAW and get back to me.
Also, to those stating arms = attacks, I sure hope you aren't letting any quadruped make unarmed strikes, combat maneuvers, or melee touch attacks.
I let horses and ponies make unarmed strikes with their two hind legs. Especially if you are arguing with someone directly behind them! :p
But those are rules for two-armed PCs, which you say don't apply if you don't have two arms. You are contradicting yourself. Either arms govern the number of attacks you can make, or they do not. There is literally no other option. How can something have off-hands if they don't have hands? All I am doing is using the same inferences you are and pointing out the inconsistency. If having 4 arms gives you 4 hands worth of attacks, 2 arms gives two hands worth of attacks, then 0 arms gives zero hands worth of attacks.
The base rules do contemplate standard PCs, but make no mention of arms, limbs, or other appendages. References to off-hand attacks don't necessitate making them with a hand. MWF and similar abilities do mention arms as being relevant, in that multiple off-hand attacks are permissible. The only difference is the number of hands, ergo .... So, once again, your point is irrelevant. The rules specify that everyone can make an off-hand attack. So having two limbs (or any at all) is irrelevant to the ability to do so. All the mentions of MWF and similar abilities all clearly contemplate additional hands being relevant, thus the conclusion that they are, in fact, relevant. Combat maneuvers and unarmed strikes are never tied to appendages in any context, so I'm not sure why you brought it up.
I appreciate that you're trying very hard because you think you've caught me in some form if inconsistency. But it really just demonstrates that you haven't been paying attention to the arguments being presented.
That's actually not even remotely close to what I said. And I am using standard rules where appropriate. Multiarmed creatures are not in all ways standard and it thus follows that where they are not standard they do not follow standard rules.
|
Sigh...
ok, at 1st level, you get two attacks with TWF. 1.0 str bonus main, .5 off. Of course the iterative attacks at later levels will keep the same bonuses, making the damage the same for each attack (Main and Off) To somehow say my input should be disregarded because mulitple attacks would add to the str mod damage is not looking at the issue in the right way. No one attack progression will have the main and off hand go higher than 1.5 str mod.
How many attacks one gets is not based on what extremities one has or how many, it is based on the class, feats and abilities of the character. (or Monster)
Multi-weapon fighting is usually an ability given to a monster, and it follows the same type of progression as TWF, with one main and off hands. Other monsters has other abilities that give them advantages that characters do not have. It is a part of their challenge to the character to defeat them.
If you want to talk about characters, put the Bestiaries away and concentrate on the rules for the characters. If a GM wants to give you feats from the bestiary, let him judicature the particulars about those feats for you.
If you want more attacks than what TWF will give you, play a Monk. Flurry away all those misses and be satisfied. Playing a Four Arm race will not give you extra attacks with weapons when TWF, but you can hold extra things in the other off hands (Like some do with prehensile tails) and hold ranged weapons in off hands when forced into Melee.
If you get claw attacks (through abilities from a class/Archtype or a series of feats) on all four arms, the character can attack with all four claws at a -5 for each attack. (-2 with multiattack) Typically, those are at .5 str and have low die damage.
I can't believe this thread has gone 222 posts on something that has been discussed before ad nausium.
Some rules don't insist you have to have arms and hands to use weapons because they thought you have common sense. FOOL!
From now on, if you see a rule that doesn't include every rule on the subject, that's because you should figure out what's obvious and not point to photographs and insist they prove the Earth is flat!
Sigh...
ok, at 1st level, you get two attacks with TWF. 1.0 str bonus main, .5 off. Of course the iterative attacks at later levels will keep the same bonuses, making the damage the same for each attack (Main and Off) To somehow say my input should be disregarded because mulitple attacks would add to the str mod damage is not looking at the issue in the right way. No one attack progression will have the main and off hand go higher than 1.5 str mod.
How many attacks one gets is not based on what extremities one has or how many, it is based on the class, feats and abilities of the character. (or Monster)
Multi-weapon fighting is usually an ability given to a monster, and it follows the same type of progression as TWF, with one main and off hands. Other monsters has other abilities that give them advantages that characters do not have. It is a part of their challenge to the character to defeat them.
If you want to talk about characters, put the Bestiaries away and concentrate on the rules for the characters. If a GM wants to give you feats from the bestiary, let him judicature the particulars about those feats for you.
If you want more attacks than what TWF will give you, play a Monk. Flurry away all those misses and be satisfied. Playing a Four Arm race will not give you extra attacks with weapons when TWF, but you can hold extra things in the other off hands (Like some do with prehensile tails) and hold ranged weapons in off hands when forced into Melee.
If you get claw attacks (through abilities from a class/Archtype or a series of feats) on all four arms, the character can attack with all four claws at a -5 for each attack. (-2 with multiattack) Typically, those are at .5 str and have low die damage.
I can't believe this thread has gone 222 posts on something that has been discussed before ad nausium.
Now come on I know you have been around the boards long enough to know that we can have 300-500 post theads on the same subject weekly if people still disagree. And it really hasn't been settled Hands of effort never looked at multiarmed indivuals in the same way that 1.5x str went out the window the minute someone mentioned a Tengu which could have TWF and the right racial ablities to have kick/kick/claw/claw/bite for 3x str damage at level 1.
That's actually not even remotely close to what I said. And I am using standard rules where appropriate. Multiarmed creatures are not in all ways standard and it thus follows that where they are not standard they do not follow standard rules.But a PC that doesn't have arms is standard and doesn't follow special rules? So adding arms gives you attacks but losing them doesnt cause you to lose attacks. Great! That means a PC can just polymorph into A Kasatha over and over and get infinite attacks. Good to know.
A non-armed PC of a standard race is still a member of a standard race. So standard race rules apply. Besides, playing a non-armed PC of a standard race is already itself in "Talk to Your GM" area (just like playing a naturally four-armed race). So, just like I advocate when wanting to play anything that varies from standard (like a naturally four-armed race or a non-armed member of a standard race), I strongly encourage you to discuss the matter with your GM. This area is undoubtedly grey because the rules are not crystal clear. Opinions vary. So check with your GM.
Your sarcasm is adorable, but it really isn't doing your cause any justice. Sarcasm is an effective debate tool only when you attach to a salient point, which you have yet to do.
Now come on I know you have been around the boards long enough to know that we can have 300-500 post theads on the same subject weekly if people still disagree. And it really hasn't been settled Hands of effort never looked at multiarmed indivuals in the same way that 1.5x str went out the window the minute someone mentioned a Tengu which could have TWF and the right racial ablities to have kick/kick/claw/claw/bite for 3x str damage at level 1.Sigh...
ok, at 1st level, you get two attacks with TWF. 1.0 str bonus main, .5 off. Of course the iterative attacks at later levels will keep the same bonuses, making the damage the same for each attack (Main and Off) To somehow say my input should be disregarded because mulitple attacks would add to the str mod damage is not looking at the issue in the right way. No one attack progression will have the main and off hand go higher than 1.5 str mod.
How many attacks one gets is not based on what extremities one has or how many, it is based on the class, feats and abilities of the character. (or Monster)
Multi-weapon fighting is usually an ability given to a monster, and it follows the same type of progression as TWF, with one main and off hands. Other monsters has other abilities that give them advantages that characters do not have. It is a part of their challenge to the character to defeat them.
If you want to talk about characters, put the Bestiaries away and concentrate on the rules for the characters. If a GM wants to give you feats from the bestiary, let him judicature the particulars about those feats for you.
If you want more attacks than what TWF will give you, play a Monk. Flurry away all those misses and be satisfied. Playing a Four Arm race will not give you extra attacks with weapons when TWF, but you can hold extra things in the other off hands (Like some do with prehensile tails) and hold ranged weapons in off hands when forced into Melee.
If you get claw attacks (through abilities from a class/Archtype or a series of feats) on all four arms, the character can attack with all four claws at a -5 for each attack. (-2 with multiattack) Typically, those are at .5 str and have low die damage.
I can't believe this thread has gone 222 posts on something that has been discussed before ad nausium.
Not to mention that if you have four claw attacks (as was mentioned in thaX's post), it's not four claw attacks at -5 with .5 STR. It's four claw attacks at BAB with full STR. Yes, it's typically a low damage die (that can be increased), but high damage doesn't come from the die; it comes from modifiers to the die. Like adding your full STR bonus four times. Why am I going to make an unarmed strike to ruin all that? Also, claw damage dice are not all that different from typical one-handed or (more likely to be used when MWF) light weapon damage dice.
One could chuck in a couple kicks so (with Multiattack) you're doing -2/-2/-2/-2/-2/-2, five of which get .5 STR, one at full. Still worse than just attacking with four claws, though. Regardless, a Kasatha can do that if it gets claws on four arms. If it gets a bite, too (e.g., feral mutagen) throw in another secondary weapon.
But four daggers apparently is a bit much.
Since you seem to have trouble grasping the point, Ill go through it step by step for you this time. See if you can follow along. Do note that natural attacks are immaterial to this discussion and are not being considered.
This is what your argument yields:
Take a PC, any PC. That PC polymorphs into a Kasatha. Kasatha have 4 arms. 4 arms give 4 hands. 4 hands gives 4 attacks.Take that very same PC. That PC polymorphs into a wolf. Wolves have zero arms. Zero arms give zero hands. Zero hands gives zero attacks.
You have also declared that bestiary creatures and PCs are played the same. Therefore any creature that doesn't have arms has zero hands and zero attacks.
So like I said, I hope your quadrupeds aren't making any non-natural weapon attacks.
No, I follow the point you're trying to make. It's just a bad argument. You can patronize all you want but, like sarcasm, it's most effective when tied to a salient point. So again, it's not of much use to you here.
That isn't what my argument yields because that's not my argument. It never has been. The argument isn't "You get as many attacks as you have hands". The argument is that if you're a nonstandard race that has more than the typical two hands assumed by the CRB, then you get additional attacks per the additional hands you have.
My quadrupeds generally don't make non-natural attacks because quadrupeds generally aren't proficient with non-natural attacks and they often times don't have a way to actually carry such a weapon and attack with it. Plus, they have natural attacks that are far more effective.
However, all creatures can make unarmed strikes. This topic has come up before. There's no reason a wolf can't make an unarmed strike. They simply never do because their bite is far more effective (and doesn't provoke). Again though, it's not necessarily tied to the hands issue. And by extension, there is no reason wolves couldn't conceivably TWF with UAS. However, doing so would be beyond silly because they are in no way proficient at attacking in that manner.
Now, if you want to talk about a Monk who was shifted into the form of a wolf, sure. Go right ahead and TWF with UAS in your wolf form. Makes no difference to me.
You also haven't clarified why any of this would mean quadrupeds can't utilize combat maneuvers. That's also not a part of my argument, but you mentioned it before. Obviously, my quadrupeds rarely make use of combat maneuvers. Again, it's not because they can't, but because doing so would provoke, they're not optimal attack routines for these creatures, and I try to play most creatures at least halfway realistically. I don't know how realistic it is for a horse to try to grapple an elf, for instance. However, were that horse ever to be in a situation where it wanted to grapple an elf, it certainly could. It would just be terrible at it.
Also, in your last post before this one you seemed to imply that if a creature shifted forms into a naturally 4-armed race then shifted to a different form, they'd get to keep the additional attacks, never lose them, then gain additional attacks if they shifted back to a naturally 4-armed race again. Repeating ad nauseam to get "infinite attacks", to use your description. You didn't bring that argument up again, so I assume that means you've abandoned it. That's good because it's preposterous on its face. I'm not sure where you'd derive such a conclusion because it doesn't appear to be in any way connected with my argument or any of those presented by other posters who generally agree with me on this issue.
Regardless, hopefully you now understand the difference between what has actually been argued and what you claim to have been argued. The two are not the same and it seems to have led to some confusion on your part. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance in helping you understand how these rules interact.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since you seem to have trouble grasping the point, Ill go through it step by step for you this time. See if you can follow along. Do note that natural attacks are immaterial to this discussion and are not being considered.
This is what your argument yields:
Take a PC, any PC. That PC polymorphs into a Kasatha. Kasatha have 4 arms. 4 arms give 4 hands. 4 hands gives 4 attacks.Take that very same PC. That PC polymorphs into a wolf. Wolves have zero arms. Zero arms give zero hands. Zero hands gives zero attacks.
You have also declared that bestiary creatures and PCs are played the same. Therefore any creature that doesn't have arms has zero hands and zero attacks.
So like I said, I hope your quadrupeds aren't making any non-natural weapon attacks.
Wait.
I have seen this kind of reasoning before!
Makes a strawman shaped like a naga. Glues 2 weapons to its body. Gives it the feat 2 weapon fighting. Sends it into the arena.
|
|
bows head....
Let us step back for a moment.
I talk of the attacks between the Main Hand and the Off Hand.
When you have more attacks (TWF, Natural Attacks, higher BAB giving iterative attacks, or feats giving a boost to damage/weapon die), those attacks will ever just be one of three things, 1.5 - 1.0 - 0.5 str mod bonus, and combining the off hand with the main hand will every get you just 1.5 str mod bonus.
Perhaps I was wrong on the Natural Attacks, I usually do not go over Bestiary rules when it comes to it, I do know a bite attack, when used as a single attack, does 1.5 str mod damage. (with no penetly to hit)
With an exception or two, a character only ever has one Main Hand. Period.
However many offhands one may have has no effect on how many attacks that character can make, it is the abilities that the character/monster have that would dictate what attacks he can make, set by class and feats or by a stat block in the bestiary.
If you GM allows for a four arm race, he may also allow the character to take Multi-Weapon fighting. (Or multiattack, for natural attacks)
Two Weapon Fighting does not add anything to Multi-Weapon Fighting, from what I understand, one replaces the other.
Edit, Taking a look at the actual feats in another thread, you can attack with multiple weapons, though without the feat (Multiweapon Fighting), you would be taking a -6/-10 penalty for the attacks, lessoned by 2 if wielding a light weapon in all Off Hands, with the feat doing the same as TWF for the character.
Alright. Since you guys can't even be consistent with your own arguements I'm done. I find it hilarious that you'll state that gaining arms gives attacks but losing them does nothing using the very argument you rejected for gaining attacks. Have fun having your cake and eating it too.
They aren't the same circumstances, though. So the same argument doesn't work for both cases. That's what I've been trying to explain to you. I fail to see how I've been inconsistent.
Regardless, enjoy your gaming!
"Does having extra arms grant extra off hand attacks?"
Yes, yes, yes and yes.
|
|
Wait, where does it say a wolf can make 'armed' unarmed strikes?
You know all that stuff about rules having to be explicitly written in ways that cannot possibly be mis-interpreted?
Ignore all that. It was always nonsense. They're perfectly fine making up rules that bear no resemblance to anything written anywhere in the books. The only real criteria they are following is, 'if it agrees with what I want... then it is the rule'.
The heck? Are you seriously claiming that only humanoids can make unarmed strikes?No. I'm not. That's not even a straw man representation of what I said.
I can't even make a strawman representation of what you said. :(
Mmmh... Afetr a bit of research here is how I would rule :
First thing first : Don't mix Natural Attacks with Attacks... Natural Attacks have their own set of rules, the only relevant one in our case is : if you have a weapon in the limb that has a Natural attack you can't use this limb to do a Natural Attack...
Another important thing to remember is that the Feat Two-Weapon Fighting does NOT grant you an extra attack, it's the Two-Weapon Fighting RULE that gives you this extra attack. If you have a weapon in your off hand (An unarmed strike is considered as a weapon attack in this case) you can get this extra attack.
Now let's get to the point :
As per the Two-Weapon Figthing rules (Core Rulebook, p.202) :
Two-Weapon Fighting
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get
one extra attack per round with that weapon.
As per the Multiweapon fighting rule (Bestiary, p.315) :
Normal: A creature .. has one primary hand, and all the others are off hands.
So it's simple really, if you have 3 hands and a weapon in each of these hands (an unarmed strike is considered a weapon in this case) then as per the "Normal" paragraph in the Multi-Weapon Fighting feat it means that I've got 1 main hand and two off-hands.
So as per the two weapon fighting rule if I wield a weapon in my off hand I got an extra attack with that hand. So each of my off hands that wield a weapon grant me an extra attack.With 3 hands I got 3 attacks : one at -6, two at -10.
Now if you take the two-weapon fighting feat you can reduce your penalty only if you make two attacks : 1 main hand, 1 off hand... If you maje three attacks you take the penalty sonce the feat is only for two hand. You have to take the Multiweapon Fighting feat to reduce the penalty for more than two hands...
What is more of an issue for me is the two handed weapon thingy with 4 hands... Neither the two-weapon fighting rule, or the two-weapon fighting feat or the multiweapon fighting feat takes the two-handed weapon case in consideration. As written you can only two or multi weapon fight only with 1-handed weapon...
The other (albeit rather small) issue is : does a charcter with multi-weapon fighting qualify for feat that ask for two-weapon fighting as a pre-requisite... That's a GM call for now...
So the answer to the question "DOES HAVING EXTRA ARMS GRANT EXTRA OFF HAND ATTACKS." is yes but only if you Multiweapon fight, so only if you use Two-weapon fighting rule and, for now, only with 1 handed weapon. So you have to use the full round action to have these extra attacks with you off hands.
Mmmh... Afetr a bit of research here is how I would rule :
First thing first : Don't mix Natural Attacks with Attacks... Natural Attacks have their own set of rules, the only relevant one in our case is : if you have a weapon in the limb that has a Natural attack you can't use this limb to do a Natural Attack...
Another important thing to remember is that the Feat Two-Weapon Fighting does NOT grant you an extra attack, it's the Two-Weapon Fighting RULE that gives you this extra attack. If you have a weapon in your off hand (An unarmed strike is considered as a weapon attack in this case) you can get this extra attack.
Now let's get to the point :
As per the Two-Weapon Figthing rules (Core Rulebook, p.202) :
Two-Weapon Fighting
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get
one extra attack per round with that weapon.As per the Multiweapon fighting rule (Bestiary, p.315) :
Normal: A creature .. has one primary hand, and all the others are off hands.So it's simple really, if you have 3 hands and a weapon in each of these hands (an unarmed strike is considered a weapon in this case) then as per the "Normal" paragraph in the Multi-Weapon Fighting feat it means that I've got 1 main hand and two off-hands.
So as per the two weapon fighting rule if I wield a weapon in my off hand I got an extra attack with that hand. So each of my off hands that wield a weapon grant me an extra attack.
With 3 hands I got 3 attacks : one at -6, two at -10.Now if you take the two-weapon fighting feat you can reduce your penalty only if you make two attacks : 1 main hand, 1 off hand... If you maje three attacks you take the penalty sonce the feat is only for two hand. You have to take the Multiweapon Fighting feat to reduce the penalty for more than two hands...
What is more of an issue for me is the two handed weapon thingy with 4 hands... Neither the two-weapon fighting rule, or the two-weapon fighting feat or the multiweapon fighting feat takes the...
That's good, as using a bow involves the entire body and using 2 bows would be too confusing.
|
|
Basic...
TWF is for Two Weapons (typically, one One-Handed and one Light Weapon) and only for Two Weapons. It does not matter how many arms the character has, TWF is TWF. Now, one can use any weapon in the off hands that is wielded for any offhand attack. This would, for example, be good to try different types of weapons against a creature to get past DR.
Multi-weapon fighting uses the weapons the creature is wielding, typically a creature with 3 or more arms. The feat chain ends at Muliweapon Fighting. (TWF feats are for TWF)
Basic...
TWF is for Two Weapons (typically, one One-Handed and one Light Weapon) and only for Two Weapons. It does not matter how many arms the character has, TWF is TWF. Now, one can use any weapon in the off hands that is wielded for any offhand attack. This would, for example, be good to try different types of weapons against a creature to get past DR.
Multi-weapon fighting uses the weapons the creature is wielding, typically a creature with 3 or more arms. The feat chain ends at Muliweapon Fighting. (TWF feats are for TWF)
Mmmh... Are you talking about the two-weapon fighting feat or the two-weapon fighting rules ?
That's not the same, you don't need the two-weapon fighting feat to fight with two weapon... you just need another weapon in your hand... ;)If you talk about the feat that's another story multiweapon fighting state this :
Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms.
This indicate that if you have two-weapon fighting, and then suddenly a third arm sprout on your character you lose two-weapon fighting and gain multiweapon fighting automatically... So what if you have another feat depending on two-weapon fighting ? Do you lose this feat to ?
|
|
The basic tenet is that Two Weapon Fighting feat is being used, though it isn't "needed" to TWF, doing so means massive penalties.
When a character has 3 or more arms, whether or not a player can have that character gain Multiweapon fighting as a feat is up to the GM, as it is a Bestiary Monster feat.
If they can not get that Feat, then TWF can be used instead to take down the penalties with the feats.
Multiweapon Fighting feat is the end of that "chain" of feats, as the TWF feats that continue from TWF do not apply to MWF.
Ask your GM.
(In PFS, it is a moot point at this time, as there are no four armed characters.)