This has probably been asked about a thousand times, but would a Kasatha monk get four unarmed strikes in a round?
If so, what sort of penalties would they be hit with?
I'm building a new monk and they seem like a fun idea.
Also probs a dumb question but are Kasatha first party?
using flurry of blows probably won't help as it doesn't care how many free hands or off hands you have (or even if you don't have any = head butts etc) you only get to attack as much as the table says you do.
But multi weapon fighting (using unarmed strike as the base weapon) would let you do one main and 3 off hand attacks. and since it replace 2 weapon fighting you can later get improved and greater two weapon fighting to gain one more off hand attack at -5 and -10 bab.
so with multi-weapon fighting, improved two weapon fighting and greater two weapon fighting. a level 20 fighter Kasatha (or anyone with +20 bab) would get :
+20\+15\+10\+5 - main hand attack
+20\+20\+20\+15\+10 off hand attacks
(not including any penalty for 2 weapon fighting)
notice that that all +20 attacks must be one with different hands. 4 of them for 1 main and 3 off hand, and the two +15 and +10 attacks as well must come from separate hands each
take my horseman-follower kasata who used 2X double chained kama with naming each weapon head after a horseman (war,death,pestilence and famine)
using the above he can attack with each weapon head once for +20. then pick two to attack with +15 (can't use the same one for both). then any two for +10 (again must be two not one same one for both) then any of them for the +5
Ah righto, awesome!
I'll have a chat to the GM and hopefully he's chill with that.
Just trying to build a good druid but also not a boring human.
I considered Tengu or Lizardfolk but their natural attacks don't scale up like the unarmed strikes.
Which if you ask me, makes zero sense for Lizardfolk especially.
But multi weapon fighting (using unarmed strike as the base weapon) would let you do one main and 3 off hand attacks.
No, no, no, no, NO! Multiweapon Fighting does never, under any circumstances, grant additional attacks. COme on, people, is it relaly that hard to read a single sentence? Because that's the entire benefits section, one single sentence. The literally only thing the feat does is reduce penalties. That single sentence even starts with the word "penalties". The feat doesn't allow you to do something that you couldn't do before, and there isn't anything in the rules that allows you to make additional attacks just because you wield more weapons.
There are some monsters that have stat blocks using more than two weapons, but that's not actually supported by the rules and thus an exception, not something a PC can get.
The Kasatha description doesn't grant any additional attacks either, because the only thing in that direction is "One hand is considered its primary hand; all others are considered off hands.", but that does not talk about attacks. Just like the Multiweapon Fighting feat, it's only modifying the penalties, not granting you additional abilities or attacks. The rules for mainhand and offhand(s) are seperate from even the TWF rules.
Also probs a dumb question but are Kasatha first party?
Both d20pfsrd.com and aonsrd.com list sources, although the former is not a reliable source. Anything on Archives of Nethys is from Paizo, anyway.
I don't completely agree that a lack of rules means that it wouldn't allow more attacks, your milage with your GM will still vary. (Otherwise they wouldn't need to specify alchemist vestigial arms don't grant extra attacks and Marilith multiweapon mastery would also need to specify it gains attacks from multiple limbs instead of just reducing the penalty.)
If you can use a kasatha, or any of your natural attack builds you can also look into the Shifter class, and style shifter archetype. You get a little druidic stuff as you mentioned and alot of the similar feel as a monk. Your natural attacks from claw feature scale similar to a monk's damage, all 4 of your arms would become primary attacks, and you can still make some additional attacks later through more natural attacks or from shifter's fury for that flurry feel.
Also check out Menhir Guardian monk archetype if you're not Kasatha for a natural attacking monk.
Wouldn't I not get access to a bunch of Monk stuff if I take Menhir Guardian though?
A lot of Monk abilities are dependent on monk weapons or unarmed strikes.
Quick update:
GM just told me he only wants core races from here on out.
Welp there goes that idea.
Ok follow up question
As I'm playing core now, are there any ways to get natural attacks without spending heaps of levels in something other than monk?
I want to be able to keep unarmed strike. That way I can use my unarmed attacks as primary, and natural attacks as secondary.
Half-Orcs can get a bite, but is there anyway I can get claws?
All g I may have solved it.
I was looking at playing a MoMS monk.
If I dip a level into Style Shifter, I get a bonus style, and claws that count for Improved Unarmed Strike feats without having to spend 2 feats to get Weapon Focus or Feral Combat Training.
I don't completely agree that a lack of rules means that it wouldn't allow more attacks, your milage with your GM will still vary.
Well, in that case, there isn't any rule that says I can't kill an enemy by thinking about them!
Seriously, in Pathfinder, you can only do what's explicitly allowed. You can only attack with a second weapon ebcause the TWF rules exist and allow that. There is no such thing for more than two weapons.
Otherwise they wouldn't need to specify alchemist vestigial arms don't grant extra attacks
Well, if I would list all the instances of unncessessary reminder text, we'll be here until next tuesday...
Marilith multiweapon mastery would also need to specify it gains attacks from multiple limbs instead of just reducing the penalty.
Yes! Or a general rule for that. I hate it that there are no actual rules on the topic.
But multi weapon fighting (using unarmed strike as the base weapon) would let you do one main and 3 off hand attacks.No, no, no, no, NO! Multiweapon Fighting does never, under any circumstances, grant additional attacks. COme on, people, is it relaly that hard to read a single sentence? Because that's the entire benefits section, one single sentence. The literally only thing the feat does is reduce penalties. That single sentence even starts with the word "penalties". The feat doesn't allow you to do something that you couldn't do before, and there isn't anything in the rules that allows you to make additional attacks just because you wield more weapons.
There are some monsters that have stat blocks using more than two weapons, but that's not actually supported by the rules and thus an exception, not something a PC can get.
The Kasatha description doesn't grant any additional attacks either, because the only thing in that direction is "One hand is considered its primary hand; all others are considered off hands.", but that does not talk about attacks. Just like the Multiweapon Fighting feat, it's only modifying the penalties, not granting you additional abilities or attacks. The rules for mainhand and offhand(s) are seperate from even the TWF rules.
Also probs a dumb question but are Kasatha first party?Both d20pfsrd.com and aonsrd.com list sources, although the former is not a reliable source. Anything on Archives of Nethys is from Paizo, anyway.
multi weapon fighting of course doesn't grant more attacks. its the extra 2 arms that does. what multi weapon fighting does is lower the main and off hands penalties for attacking with more then one weapon.
which is why when ever some1 gain more arms\other limbs) with any ability (like the alchemist discoveries. tentacle and v,hand) it have to specify if you gain extra attacks or limit it. kasatha is NOT limited so he can make an attack with each arm he has. he just take a big penalty to do so (also look at the kasata race specific 2 bow archer class)
multi weapon fighting of course doesn't grant more attacks.
"of course" it doesn't? You literally said " multi weapon fighting (...) would let you do one main and 3 off hand attacks."
Also, quote some f%#%ing rules. Until you do that, you're wrong on the grounds of Pathfinder being a permissive rule system.
very first line of two weapon fighting rules :
Two-Weapon Fighting
Source PRPG Core Rulebook pg. 202
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon
Multi-Armed: A kasatha has four arms. One hand is considered its primary hand; all others are considered off hands.
nothing EVER said only one off hand attack a round.(this is your assumption)
now if you disagree why don't you show me where it does say so.
you are right, as i said, that the feat multi weapon fighting doesn't grant the extra attacks. like the feat two weapon fighting that doesn't grant extra attacks. both just lower penalties.
(from multi weapon fighting:
Benefit: Penalties for fighting with multiple weapons are reduced by –2 with the primary hand and by –6 with off hands.
I don't completely agree that a lack of rules means that it wouldn't allow more attacks, your milage with your GM will still vary.Well, in that case, there isn't any rule that says I can't kill an enemy by thinking about them!
Seriously, in Pathfinder, you can only do what's explicitly allowed. You can only attack with a second weapon ebcause the TWF rules exist and allow that. There is no such thing for more than two weapons.
Otherwise they wouldn't need to specify alchemist vestigial arms don't grant extra attacksWell, if I would list all the instances of unncessessary reminder text, we'll be here until next tuesday...
Marilith multiweapon mastery would also need to specify it gains attacks from multiple limbs instead of just reducing the penalty.Yes! Or a general rule for that. I hate it that there are no actual rules on the topic.
There isn't explicit rules, but there is evidence that the devs intended more attacks with weapon wieldable limbs. Every single creature I've searched with multiple limbs and weapons can make additional attacks without a special clause saying they can do so and the reference of multi-weapon fighting feat. I didn't mean as do anything without the rules, I also know most those rules are written assuming a normal humanoid so that they don't give too much extra text for out of the norm cases.
For reminder text, you won't be there till next Tuesday because that is the only ability to reference it.
What I will agree is that extra limbs and extra attacks are powerful and that the devs try to not give the benefits to PCs. The only core way to get more limbs without actually transforming into or playing a monster race is through the vestigial arms, but they specifically wrote them to not add extra attacks. The real reason we will not see specified limb rules otherwise is because Kasatha are not in a core book, so they will never get an official FAQ. So once again it's a grey area so up to the GM to allow or not.
nothing EVER said only one off hand attack a round.(this is your assumption)
Two-Weapon Fighting
Source PRPG Core Rulebook pg. 202
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon
"If you wield a second weapon" - do you know what the word "second" means? A third or forth weapon is not a second weapon.
It says "second", it says "your off hand" (that's singular, it doesn't say "an off hand"), and the whole combat option is called "Two-Weapon Fighting". Do you honestly think that this sentence supports three-weapon fighting?
There isn't explicit rules, but there is evidence that the devs intended more attacks with weapon wieldable limbs.
For those monsters, absolutely. But for PCs? If PCs were supposed to gain additional attacks, why is Multiweapon Fighting a Monster Feat that was only ever printed in the Bestiary books?
In any case, the RAW are what they are, no matter the writer's intend. The writer of the Kasatha might indeed have intended to allow every wannabe munchkin that wants to cheat the system to use the race to gain two bonus attacks, but that intend doesn't do jack if the rules don't support it. And the thing is, stat blocks don't make rules. The Design Team has overruled explicit writer intend more than once.
For reminder text, you won't be there till next Tuesday because that is the only ability to reference it.
I meant every instance of where a Pathfinder book contains needless reminder text. Just about ever natural weapon option, for example (they usually repeat the part that they're secondary when used alongside weapons). I never made any list, of course, but I'm absolutely sure that I can find hundreds of examples of text in a feat, class feature et al. that only repeats a general rule.
Last thing I care to add about this is I was arguing every monster, so any bestiary monster with multiple sets of hands and multi-weapon fighting can deal more attacks, not just the Kasatha writer.
I agree, its not PC friendly, but it can come up for a few polymorph spells or eidolons with multiple limbs for example.
I also would say outside of the assumed 2 armed PC rules for the most part, I don't know of any combat rules a monster follows that a PC doesn't. They just get differences in stats, size and arbitrary abilities that can bypass these abilities, so as I noted none of these creatures actually have an ability to specify that.
The last thing to note is all the chassis of pathfinder is taken direct text from d20 system that doesn't always fit. Of the top of my head is horses and combat training, and familiars and caster level. So if you're not playing PFS where most this is banned anyway, you can be a rules stickler all you want. Its still up to the GM as to what they think is appropriate and in my opinion as I said, combat rules are shared or else all those monsters wouldn't make sense.
Sure, and it's up to the GM to say whether or not my character can kill people by thinking about them.
A GM can always houserule things to be different, but the RAW is that PC's don't get additional attacks from having more arms. The OP asked a rule question, and the correct answer is "no".
If you want to call me a "rules stickler" for presenting an objective viewpoint when the OP asked a rule question, then I wear that description with pride.
I also would say outside of the assumed 2 armed PC rules for the most part, I don't know of any combat rules a monster follows that a PC doesn't.
There are plenty of erroneous stat blocks. Wrongly applied hybrid form of were-creatures jump to mind, and not long ago I saw a thread here about a statblock listing potions of a personal-range spell.
I understand there is a rule for wielding a second weapon and getting an extra attack, and there is no rule for what happens wielding a 3rd +. I am saying it seems perfectly reasonable for GMs to follow that rule because the game designers seem to with their characters.
Your argument with designers giving attacks doesn't completely work. Most of what you referenced are natural attacks which work just fine on any PC. And you can technically get extra attacks with the kasatha through claws etc as I reference in an earlier post if you had to follow by that rule.
What I am saying is these monsters technically by the rules of combat cannot use these extra limbs with weapon attacks, even if they have them in their stat block because of the lack of actual rules. So because of this I am advocating it makes sense it is a rule.
As far as D&D 3.5, the exact text of two-weapon fighting and multi-weapon fighting are the same, because they are copy and pasted from the same source as I stated earlier with some errors that don't match systems. So no they aren't two separate things.
The F.A.Q. for two handers and weapons spikes also causes the kasatha ability to make less sense as it is apparently taking up your offhand could be interpreted as taking up the extra attack from a second weapon. But it prevents your exaggerated assessment of unarmed strikes.
That is still Natural Attacks and specified abilities, they are not the problem, they don't break the rule... The discussion is 3+ limbs that can wield weapons.
Your argument is there is no rule for it. This also means is that there is also no combat rule allowing a monster to use 3+ limbs to gain weapon attacks so that would mean that this is an error in their stat blocks.
this does mean is however:
Offical R.A.I (A reference of statistical use of through Multiattack feat, and examples of creatures with 3 or more limbs using weapon attacks in CORE) + Confirmed R.A.I (the whole entire production line of PF1e start to finish where this was not changed and continued use of this by not errataing these monsters so it must be correct and made more monsters that benefit from it.) = basically R.A.W at this point (written use and examples of how creatures with 3+ weapon limbs would act)
CASE CLOSED.
basically R.A.W at this point
Do you even know what RAW means? There are no rules that allow this, therefore it can't possibly be RAW.
You're also ignoring a possible different interpretation: That there are some implied rules for monsters that were never actually written because PCs are not supposed to have access to them. They don't errata it because the monsters are intended to have additional attacks, it's PCs that aren't. Of course, there's a million things that would have more need to be errata'd/clarificed/fixed.
If your GM allows you to play a Kasatha, but doesn't allow you to fight with 4 weapons (or 4 whatever), then he's telling you you can't play a Kasatha.
Or he's telling you to not be a dirty wannabe-munchkin who's trying to cheat the system. There are people who pick races based on flavor, you know?
there is not much reason to play one if you aren't allowed to wield 4 weapons, 3 weapons and a shield, or make 2 extra Unarmed strikes.
Meirril listed some examples of beneficial uses of the extra arms that work RAW.
Prove to me monsters follow unwritten COMBAT rules, or else those monsters are a missprint. Every ability a monster has otherwise has been specified. Or apparently as you say they can just look at some one and kill them.
And I said = basically R.A.W... just as F.A.Q.s are basically rAW.
I don't have to. RAW is that kasathas don't get additional attacks. It doesn't matter why these stat blocks of monsters with more attacks are that way. Unless there's a rule that says that PCs can do it, PCs can't do it. Everything else is just wishful thinking on your part.
And I said = basically R.A.W... just as F.A.Q.s are basically rAW.
Either it is RAW, or it isn't. You're making up nonsensical phrases to hide the fact that you're arguing strictly against RAW. Your "basically RAW" has nothing to do with actual RAW, it's your personal edited version based on how you'd like the rules.
FAQs are indeed part of RAW. They are, indeed, the highest level (as in they overrule the books). Saying that your made up, not based on actual rules interpretation is on the same level of relevance ist just presumptuous.
You do have to prove they don't follow rules for them to bypass a rule.
I never said it was officially. I've advocated this whole time that this is probably a copy and pasted relic that other than you trying to shut down people has been ignored by the devs themselves.
The claws are primary natural attacks not weapons.. so they deal his BAB 12+5str-1size for 16 attack as long as he is not attacking with a weapon other wise they are secondary and deal damage like is bite in that stat block with the weapons at the 11.
His weapons are: main hand BAB 12+5str-1size+1mw weapon +1 weapon focus -4 for fighting with 3 or more weapons and light off-hands then +2 multi weapon fighting feat which equals 16
His off-hands are also BAB 12+5str-1size+1mw+1 weapon focus - 8 for fighting with 3 or more weapons with light weapons +6 multi weapon feat for offhand equaling 16.
So it is coincidence or built so the attack is roughly equal, the multiattack feat might be what your are thinking of.
I agree I don't really want to argue anymore, I just didn't agree with his argument for religiously following the rules and at the same time ignoring the rules without evidence because monsters.
In my own games I would tend to avoid letting PCs benefit from it anyway unless it was to buff an otherwise weaker character compared to other PCs or if they were all playing it. It was just my opinion that this was more grey than black and white so I gave my evidence why already.