A lot of people, myself included, were awestruck the first time we saw abilities/races that let us get more than two arms on a character...
...and then became extremely disappointed once we figured out that it didn't really do much mechanically. At least, not as much as you might think.
So inspired by that, what if you were to enchant hand-wraps to be dancing weapons?
Of course, it's not really something you can make a build around, but I just thought the idea of some floating cloth strips punching people for unarmed monk damage die was hilarious.
You could probably flavour it to be a bit more serious than that though: The ends of the cloth unravel from your hand and start lashing foes like a whip or something.
So the big question is: Would the effects of the monk/brawler Unarmed Strike for increased damage transfer over to my floaty bandages of death?
To be honest, I don't even know what RAI would be in this instance, let alone RAW. Which just makes it even more funny.
So inspired by that, what if you were to enchant hand-wraps to be dancing weapons?
Of course, it's not really something you can make a build around, but I just thought the idea of some floating cloth strips punching people for unarmed monk damage die was hilarious.
Doesn't work. A dancing weapon uses none of your statistics except for BAB. The handwraps wouldn't deal your unarmed damage, but use the listed damage. That's "—", meaning they won't do any damage on their own.
Indeed, if you were to make a weapon attack with handwraps, instead of making an unarmed strike, they wouldn't do any (base) damage either.
|
A lot of people, myself included, were awestruck the first time we saw abilities/races that let us get more than two arms on a character...
...and then became extremely disappointed once we figured out that it didn't really do much mechanically. At least, not as much as you might think.
One extra attack per arm isn't much? Seems fairly nice to me. The advantage decreases as level goes up, but you're always going to have an edge over a similar character with fewer arms.
One extra attack per arm isn't much? Seems fairly nice to me.
You don't get an extra attack per arm, because there is no rule that says you do. No, statblocks don't count.
|
|
You don't get an extra attack per arm, because there is no rule that says you do.
The 'Normal' condition of the Multiweapon Fighting feat and the Multi-armed option for custom races in the ARG both state that you do.
These general rules are then confirmed by various individual examples like the Kasatha race Multiarmed trait, the Gift of the Deep spell, the Mutant creature template, and...
No, statblocks don't count.
Ignoring all the evidence disproving your position doesn't make it go away.
You don't get an extra attack per arm, because there is no rule that says you do.The 'Normal' condition of the Multiweapon Fighting feat and the Multi-armed option for custom races in the ARG both state that you do.
No they don't. They don't state anything like that. They talk about having multiple off-hands, and about wielding multiple weapons. And no point do they mention granting additional attacks.
You think "off hand" is inextricably linked with additional attacks, but that is not true. You use the off-hand rules anytime you attack with more than one manufactured weapon/unarmed strike, even if you don't gain any extra attacks from TWF. The first attack you make is the primary hand, attacks with other weapons are made as off-hand weapons, and you only get half strength bonus. The TWF rules build upon the off hand rules, not the other way around - the TWF rules say "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon."(CRB pg. 202) You need to already wield a weapon in your off hand to be able to use the TWF options, meaning the off hand is part of the requirement, not the effect.
Multiweapon Fighting's normal section refers you to the TWF rules. Have you read them? Again, "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon." 'Second' weapon, not 'third' or 'forth'.
None of the things you listed make any mention of granting attacks. Gift of the Deep is the only one where the word "attack" is even present, and that's only for the natural attack part. This FAQ confirms that having a weapon aviable for attacking does not automatically mean you can actually attack with it (as part of a full attack).
Don't get me wrong, I understand why you're mistaken. The Multiweapon Fighting feat reduces penalties that PCs don't have any legal way of optaining (as you can't switch weapons mid-full attack when using TWF, even though you can do just that normally). But the feat only reduces penalties, it doesn't do anything else (just like the TWF feat only reduces penalties, the option to use the TWF option is there with or without the feat). The Kasatha ability likewise only talks about penalties, and doesn't grant any option itself.
Ignoring all the evidence disproving your position doesn't make it go away.
I ignore it because it isn't evidence at all. Statblocks do not make general rules for PCs, that's simply not how the Pathfinder rule system works. There are a plenty of stat blocks that don't follow the rules, containing potions of personal spells, wrongly applied templates, and so on.
|
|
It was never clarified well by the Devs, but the majority consensus is that you need a race that already gets multiple weapon attacks or multiple natural attacks.
Some of those races have a specific ability that gives the extra attack with the extra limbs, others don't but the Bestiary entry shows that they get multiple attacks.
So some creature, like a Marilith, get extra weapon attack, but having extra limbs alone isn't enough.
|
|
They don't state anything like that. They talk about having multiple off-hands, and about wielding multiple weapons.
So... "having multiple off-hands, and wielding multiple weapons" is not "anything like" making attacks with multiple off hand weapons?
Methinks thou dost protest too much.
Multiweapon Fighting's normal section refers you to the TWF rules. Have you read them? Again, "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon." 'Second' weapon, not 'third' or 'forth'.
Yes, "second" weapon for the "two" weapon fighting feat because you have ONE "off hand". For the "multi" weapon fighting feat you have MULTIPLE "off hands" (all except the one primary hand) and thus you get MORE than two attacks... it is "multi" weapon fighting. Not "two" weapon fighting.
The "Normal" rule for creatures with three or more hands is that they have one primary hand and all the others are off hands. That's it. We don't need to know anything more to figure out multi-weapon fighting. We have existing rules for off hands... weapons wielded in such hands get 1/2 strength bonus to damage, attacks are made at -10 (potentially modified by feats and/or if the weapon is light), etc. Nothing about those existing rules changes just because the creature happens to have more than one off hand. Ditto for primary hand and two hand attacks.
The Kasatha ability likewise only talks about penalties, and doesn't grant any option itself.
No... the kasatha/ARG ability doesn't say anything about penalties;
"Multi-Armed: A kasatha has four arms. One hand is considered its primary hand; all others are considered off hands. It can use any of its hands for other purposes that require free hands. (4 arms; 8 RP)"
I ignore it because it isn't evidence at all.
When every stat block Paizo has ever published with the issue in question matches only one interpretation of the rules then yes... that's evidence.
Any given stat block can indeed contain a mistake. However, when ALL of the stat blocks work the same way it just isn't reasonable to claim that different people made the same mistake in different books every single time over the entire history of the game. Take the normal primary, off, and two hand weapon rules and apply them to characters using weapons in three or more hands and the stats line up correctly.
They don't state anything like that. They talk about having multiple off-hands, and about wielding multiple weapons.So... "having multiple off-hands, and wielding multiple weapons" is not "anything like" making attacks with multiple off hand weapons?
Are you ashamed of what you previously wrote? Or are you trying to construct a strawman?
The talk wasn't about "making attacks with multiple off hand weapons", but rather about "get[ting] an extra attack per arm". My whole argument is that those are not the same. Attacking with multiple weapons is not the same as getting additional attacks.
You want to make fun of me saying that "having multiple off-hands, and wielding multiple weapons is not anything like 'get[ting] an extra attack per arm'"? Put your money where your mouth is and show some proof that they aren't completely seperate. So far, the only evidence you've brought forth is that it's possible to wield multiple weapons, and to have multiple off-hands. You have presented zero evidence that those options translate to additional attacks.
Show me where the rules on multiweapon fighting are. Not the feat, which only reduces penalties, but the actual rule option, the equivalent to the TWF rules on page 202 of the CRB. Because in Pathfinder, we can only do what a rule says we can do. That's how the the game works, a permissive rule system.* We can only get an extra attack when wielding a second weapon because the TWF rules say we can. Unless you can show me an actual rule that allows the same with more weapons, we can't.
*) Otherwise we end up with "i can kill people by thinking about them because nothing says I can't".
No... the kasatha/ARG ability doesn't say anything about penalties
Sure it does. Attacking with a weapon in an off-hand means you only add half strength bonus on damage rolls. You want to tell me that's not a penalty?
When every stat block Paizo has ever published with the issue in question matches only one interpretation of the rules then yes... that's evidence.
"Every stat block"? Let's see... Kasatha:
Four arms, but no mention of additional attacks. So much for every stat block, and thus stat blocks being evidence.
No point in arguing about this.
RAW: Nothing written allows a player to use the other arms for multiweapon fighting. There is also no written rule to allow a monster to do it either. (The Kasatha statblock was unfortunately built around the monk and flurry of blows doesn't allow extra attacks so its not really evidence for or against.)
RAI: The statistics and rules for extra arms are easily interpreted so its perfectly reasonable to use in a home game or not.
|
|
The talk wasn't about "making attacks with multiple off hand weapons", but rather about "get[ting] an extra attack per arm". My whole argument is that those are not the same.
They really are. If you can make one weapon attack per off hand and you have multiple off hands then you are making attacks with multiple off hand weapons. It's the exact same thing.
Attacking with multiple weapons is not the same as getting additional attacks.
...and this is something completely different. That FAQ is about iterative attacks from high BAB. Not individual attacks from each arm regardless of your BAB.
So far, the only evidence you've brought forth is that it's possible to wield multiple weapons, and to have multiple off-hands. You have presented zero evidence that those options translate to additional attacks.
You're going to need to explain the difference to me. Are you using "wield" in the sense of 'hold', rather than 'attack with'?
Show me where the rules on multiweapon fighting are. Not the feat, which only reduces penalties, but the actual rule option, the equivalent to the TWF rules on page 202 of the CRB.
The MWF feat is the only additional rule required. It tells you how multiple arms are divided between primary and off hands and what the penalties are for multiple off hands. Everything else is covered by existing rules.
Because in Pathfinder, we can only do what a rule says we can do. That's how the the game works, a permissive rule system.*
*) Otherwise we end up with "i can kill people by thinking about them because nothing says I can't".
This is made up and self-contradictory. Nothing in the rules says that Pathfinder is a permissive rule system... therefore we cannot treat it as such. See, self contradictory.
I find the actual guidance in the book more useful, "Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt."
In short, the rules are meant to be interpreted and examined from all sides. Evidence, like stat blocks, should be considered. Logic should be followed. Things like, 'if the TWO weapon fighting feat reduces the penalties for attacking with weapons in TWO hands then the MULTI weapon fighting feat reduces the penalties for attacking with weapons in... come one you can figure this out... MULTIPLE hands!'
The 'permissive system' fiction is a method of interpretation too... just usually one that insists on ignoring evidence to arrive at a pre-determined conclusion at odds with the obvious intent.
"Every stat block"? Let's see... Kasatha:
Melee sai +3 (1d4+1) or unarmed strike +3 (1d6+1) or flurry of blows +2/+2 (1d6+1)
Four arms, but no mention of additional attacks. So much for every stat block, and thus stat blocks being evidence.
I said every stat block "with the issue in question". A kasatha wielding one weapon is no more evidence that it cannot wield four than a human wielding one weapon is evidence that they cannot wield two.
Only stat blocks where a creature actually attacks with three or more weapons can tell us anything about the rules for attacking with three or more weapons... and those stat blocks ALL match the rules set out under the Normal condition of the MWF feat. One primary hand and all others off hand... with all the normal rules for such applying.
The talk wasn't about "making attacks with multiple off hand weapons", but rather about "get[ting] an extra attack per arm". My whole argument is that those are not the same.They really are. If you can make one weapon attack per off hand (...)
Stopped reading there. You have not shown that you can make one weapon attack per off hand.
I glanced over the rest of your post, but didn't see a single rule quote. Indeed, in all your posts in this thread, you have not quoted or even referred to a single general rule. I have.
Derklord, I agree but...jeeze. Coming on a little strong.
There are no rules that tell us, outright, how multi-weapon fighting works. There might be a line of reasoning that can lead us to fair assumptions, but that's it. And in a permissive rules system (which, CBDunkerson, is exactly what Pathfinder--and most other games of all sorts--is), that's technically not enough.
In my games? Yes, you have multiple arms, you get multiple attacks. But you wouldn't have multiple arms.
|
|
The talk wasn't about "making attacks with multiple off hand weapons", but rather about "get[ting] an extra attack per arm". My whole argument is that those are not the same.They really are. If you can make one weapon attack per off hand and you have multiple off hands then you are making attacks with multiple off hand weapons. It's the exact same thing.
Alchemist:
- you can get extra arms- you can use the arms to attack
- you don't get extra attacks
There isn't any text that says "you can make one weapon attack per off hand" in any of the rulebooks, AFAIK. If you can find it cite book and page.
The Kasata say "One hand is considered its primary hand; all others are considered off hands".
All that says is that after he has chosen to use a hand as a primary, for that turn whatever other hand or hands he uses is secondary.
If he has the feats to make iterative attacks with his secondary hand he can choose to use different secondary hands. Generally, it doesn't matter, but if the target of your attacks has some kind of DR and you want to try different weapons it can be useful.
Not that it would change anything for a PC, I am just curious on on those that would only follow the written rule think about the monsters with multi-weapon fighting.
Technically they have no rule or ability written that allows them to gain their extra weapon attacks. I also know of no evidence that a creature follows any different combat rules that aren't written, just different creation rules. So are they miss-prints and multi-weapon fighting a basically dead feat for them?
As a side note, outside of specific callouts like the alchemist's arms, a PC could prob find a way to make the extra limbs natural attacks anyway such as claws and basically be about as strong as most offhand attacks anyway IMO.
|
|
There isn't any text that says "you can make one weapon attack per off hand" in any of the rulebooks, AFAIK. If you can find it cite book and page.
That EXACT combination and order of words, no.
Very similar words that can reasonably be interpreted to mean the same thing? Absolutely;
"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." (Bestiary)
Why would the text for the NORMAL condition for creatures with three or more arms say "attacks made with ALL of its off hands" if such creatures CANNOT make attacks with all of their off hands?
Even if you subscribe to some convoluted interpretation that it is only talking about what the penalties would be if they COULD do so, and this being the "Normal" condition not meant to imply that they are able to do so by default (nor that the feat being named "Multiweapon Fighting" should be taken to in any way suggest that such creatures can fight with multiple weapons)... it seems to me unreasonable to claim that the OTHER interpretation, that they CAN make attacks with all of their off hands, is impossible or far fetched.
Hey are we doing this dance again!
Just curious: TWF says:
Multiweapon says:
Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms
Since Multiweapon replaces TWF but has no text about the extra weapon = extra attack, by RAW, wouldn't that meant that Multiattack does not infact allow any extra attack whatsoever and would be actually worse than TWF in the first place? Note that the special isn't even optional. It strictly says it replaces TWF, not even "Can replace" or "functions as"
RAI it seems that TWF = extra weapon = extra attack (at penalty), and Multi = extra weapon = extra attack (at penalty) since it's inteded to function as and replace TWF.
RAW it seems that the moment you get more than two arms, you replace TWF with Multi and lose extra attacks.
Since Multiweapon replaces TWF but has no text about the extra weapon = extra attack, by RAW, wouldn't that meant that Multiattack does not infact allow any extra attack whatsoever and would be actually worse than TWF in the first place?
There appears to be some misunderstanding how feats work. A feat only does for your character what the benefits section and the special section say (plus in some feats copied from 3.5 the descriptive text). The normal section is not rule text, i.e. it doesn't make rules - it's reminder text that merely repeats the existing general rules.
The option to make the bonus attack comes from the TWF rule option, CRB pg. 202, this is what the TWF feat's normal section refers to. In now way is the ability to use that rule option tied to having the feat; this means you can get an extra attack from TWF without having the feat. Both the TWF feat and Multiweapon Fighting only ever reduce penalties, they never do anything else. Multiweapon Fighting replaces the TWF feat, but nothing replaces the TWF rule option - kind of the whole reason for the debate.
The feat was not written by Paizo, by the way - the entire feat text is copied verbatim from the 3.5 Monster Manual, with the exception of a) the reference and b) the descriptive text. In 3.5, this descriptive text said "A creature with three or more hands can fight with a weapon in each hand. The creature can make one extra attack each round with each extra weapon" (3.5 MM pg. 304). In Pathfinder, however, they changed that to "This multi-armed creature is skilled at making attacks with multiple weapons." (B1 pg. 316)
Not that it would change anything for a PC, I am just curious on on those that would only follow the written rule think about the monsters with multi-weapon fighting.
I would run them as written, just like I'd run the erroneous hybrid were-creature stat block as written, or the personal-range-potion stat blocks as written.
Because those monsters are intended to have those extra attacks, and are balanced around having them. PCs, not so much.
Just curious: TWF says:
Multiweapon says:
Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms
Since Multiweapon replaces TWF but has no text about the extra weapon = extra attack, by RAW, wouldn't that meant that Multiattack does not infact allow any extra attack whatsoever and would be actually worse than TWF in the first place? Note that the special isn't even optional. It strictly says it replaces TWF, not even "Can replace" or "functions as"
RAI it seems that TWF = extra weapon = extra attack (at penalty), and Multi = extra weapon = extra attack (at penalty) since it's inteded to function as and replace TWF.
RAW it seems that the moment you get more than two arms, you replace TWF with Multi and lose extra attacks.
If you spend even a few moments searching the forums you'll see this has gone around in circles like this numerous times with out ever getting a Dev answer and likely never will.
If you spend even a few moments searching the forums you'll see this has gone around in circles like this numerous times with out ever getting a Dev answer and likely never will.
Fair enough, luckily doesn't seem like an everyday issue.
|
|
There isn't any text that says "you can make one weapon attack per off hand" in any of the rulebooks, AFAIK. If you can find it cite book and page.That EXACT combination and order of words, no.
Very similar words that can reasonably be interpreted to mean the same thing? Absolutely;
"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." (Bestiary)
Why would the text for the NORMAL condition for creatures with three or more arms say "attacks made with ALL of its off hands" if such creatures CANNOT make attacks with all of their off hands?
Even if you subscribe to some convoluted interpretation that it is only talking about what the penalties would be if they COULD do so, and this being the "Normal" condition not meant to imply that they are able to do so by default (nor that the feat being named "Multiweapon Fighting" should be taken to in any way suggest that such creatures can fight with multiple weapons)... it seems to me unreasonable to claim that the OTHER interpretation, that they CAN make attacks with all of their off hands, is impossible or far fetched.
That text exists because some of the creatures in the Bestiary have multiple off hands attacks. But that text don't give it.
You are saying that the "normal" text allow them to attack with multiple weapons, while instead, it mean that "If a creature can attack with multiple weapons, it has this modifier".Note that creatures in the Bestiaries aren't made following the PC rules, so they can work differently even without a specific ability if that difference is written in the statblock.
If extra limbs translates automatically into extra attacks, why all creatures with extra limbs don't get extra attacks, but some get several, without any mention of a special attack?
What is the ability that gives a gargoyle a gore attack without a special ability saying that? It is its statblock.
If a creature statblock has extra, non-iterative, weapons attack it has them, if it hasn't, it hasn't (barring a specific, printed rule giving them).
What is the ability that gives a gargoyle a gore attack without a special ability saying that? It is its statblock.
If a creature statblock has extra, non-iterative, weapons attack it has them, if it hasn't, it hasn't
The reason I don't agree with following this is if you arbitrarily give a a PC the same gore attack, they have the rules to use it, but suddenly If I gave a PC extra arms, let them play as the monster race or they polymorph into something like that then all of a sudden they can't use those arms well unless they were also Natural attacks?
You can't really do any of these without DM letting you anyway (other than maybe a monstrous physique shape or something.) So I don't even understand people arguing it in the first place. Always been my opinion combat rules should be the same.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are saying that the "normal" text allow them to attack with multiple weapons, while instead, it mean that "If a creature can attack with multiple weapons, it has this modifier".
Funny. I don't see the word "if" anywhere in there.
Note that creatures in the Bestiaries aren't made following the PC rules
Another thing people just 'made up' (proving once again how self-defeating the 'permissive system' claim is) so far as I can determine. My understanding is that the rules are the rules. PCs will almost always be limited to some subset of the available options, but the rules don't work differently for PCs than they do for NPCs.
so they can work differently even without a specific ability if that difference is written in the statblock.
There are always occasional errors and exceptions, but if (for example) an NPC has a potion of a spell that can't normally be made into a potion... it still works just fine when a PC gets hold of it. We don't know how that particular magic item came into being, but the rules for how it works are exactly the same for PCs and NPCs.
If extra limbs translates automatically into extra attacks, why all creatures with extra limbs don't get extra attacks
If this were actual logic it would equally imply that stat blocks of creatures with two arms wielding only one weapon meant that they could not wield two.
but some get several, without any mention of a special attack?
Exactly. In all the stat blocks of creatures wielding weapons with three or more arms there is not a single one listing a special ability allowing them to do that... because it isn't a special ability. It is the "Normal" state for creatures with three or more arms. If it were a special ability then there would be text explaining how it worked in each entry (especially in a 'permissive system').
What is the ability that gives a gargoyle a gore attack without a special ability saying that?
False question. There IS a special ability saying that. See Natural Attacks in the Universal Monster Rules for the specific rules explaining gore attacks. It does not just magically appear in the stat block with no way to figure out how the listed damage dice, to hit, and str damage bonus were determined. There are rules... and they apply exactly the same to NPCs and PCs... despite the fact that none of the early PC races had natural attacks.
...and that is the problem with the 'nope, there is no rule' fiction. It takes away the GM's ability to figure out how attacks with weapons in 3+ arms work. The rules are clearly stated and match every stat block with weapons in 3+ arms ever published... but some people inexplicably insist that GMs ignore these rules and try to make things up themselves if the situation comes up in one of their games.
There are plenty of reasons to not allow PCs to use the multi weapon attack rules in most games... but none of those explain not allowing GMs to use them.
To rethrow my 2 cents into the arena from previous discussion. If extra hands don't grant new attacks then why do they spell out when extra hands don't grant extra attacks such as vestigial arms? I mean if it was a hard rule either you would put that text on every instance of extra arms, or you would put something on the ones that did grant them instead of the other way around.
@CBDunkerson I do love how that gets brought up every time "Monsters don't follow the same rules as PCs" Well no they don't from a stand point of how they are built but they follow the exact same set of base rules for how their abilities work.