There it is again! Two hands' worth of effort. Barf.
Nobody in Paizo had the creativity to imagine something playable existing in a fantasy game with more arms than the human you are every day of your mundane life.
Let them do it. It will effect nothing unless you let them cast 9th level spells with each hand in one round.
Dual wield Elven Curveblades as an UnRogue... if it's PF1 and you're not a 9th level caster, there's no such thing as balance issues.
Allowing the alien to attack with every hand will not break anything. Druids can be an F'ing OCTOPUS!
One of my players wants to play the Kasatha race which has four arms and uses the multi-weapon fighting feat assuming he would gain 4 attacks during a full-round action.
First, as Lelomenia said, the feat only alters penalties to existing attacks, nothing more. Second, there is no option in the rules to get more attacks based on the number of weapons you wield, beyond two-weapon fighting, so, additional arms don't grant additional attacks. That's exactly like how the TWF feat only lowers the penalty and the TWF rules (in the combat rules) are what allow the bonus attack.
In order to attack, you need to use a rule option (which includes feats, class features, spells etc.) that allows you to attack - just having a weapon in hand is not enough. The rules allow a single attack with a single manufactured weapon, natural weapon, or unarmed strike, for everythign else, you need other rules. You recieve additional attacks with manufactured weapons or unarmed strikes based on BAB (with an increasing penalty to those attacks), you get an attack with every natural weapon not on a limb already used, and you can get an additional attack with a manufactured weapon or unarmed strike if you use the TWF rules. Do note that the TWF rules are very explicit that they only do something for the second weapon you are wielding*, and don't do anything for weapons beyond that. Indeed, it's possible for every character to wield more than two weapons (thanks to armor spikes and blade boot), but the mere existence of weapons doesn't grant attacks.
*) "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon." (CRB pg. 202, emphasis mine)
I am trying to determine if this is fair as I can see the rogue on their team becoming quite jealous
It depends a bit on the circumstances (difficulty of the campaign, combat-centricity of the campaign, system mastery of the players in question, archetype selection, and what class the Kasatha-player is playing), but in general, I think you're right to be cautious. Rogue is one of the weakest classes in the game especially when it comes to combat, and is thus very easy to overshadow already. However, TWF isn't actually that good, so four-weapon fighting (which usually requires buying four magical weapons!) doesn't necessarily make the character notably stronger!
I'm wondering whether I should just stick to the core races.
Doesn't have to be just the core races, but you should be wary about races that allow players to bypass certain limitations the game expects them to have. Kasatha is one of two races that is almost always selected solely to cheat (the other is the Samsaran thanks to the Mystic Past Life option), and thus should only be allowed if you are certain the player is not trying to gain an unfair advantage. Other races that I would be careful about are those where the ability score bonuses are not normal (normal means "+2 to one physicial ability score, +2 to one mantal ability score, and -2 to one remaining ability score"), multiple natural weapons, and everything that allows flight.
Doesn't mean characters with such races are automatically overpowered, or that every players wants those races to min-max as much as possible, but a GM should be cautious.
Dual wield Elven Curveblades as an UnRogue... if it's PF1 and you're not a 9th level caster, there's no such thing as balance issues.
I disagree with the second part, but I think the first part actually works by the RAW. The respective FAQ says "you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.", but the kasatha description says "A kasatha has four arms. One hand is considered its primary hand; all others are considered off hands.", and thus not all off-hands are occupied when wielding a single two-handed weapon. The quintessence of the FAQ is "you only have one off-hand and can use it for only one thing", but the Kasatha's "you have three off-hands" overrides the first part due to being the more specific rule. The second part remains, but that doesn't really affect anything.
Doesn't change the fact that there is no TWF-equivalent rule for three or more weapons, of course.
Oh boy, does this topic will get heated fast based on previous such threads.
Threads usually only get heated when people pull stuff out of their ass, and then make one fallacy-riddled post after another to defend their objectivly wrong claim as if their life depended on it. So far, everything looks fine.
I mean, everyone everyone with working eyes can see that the word "attack" doesn't appear in the Kasatha description, and thus the Multi-Armed ability cannot possible be the rule part that grants additional attacks.
Everyone everyone with working eyes can see that the word "attack" doesn't appear in the Multiweapon Fighting feat's benefit or special sections. A feat's normal section only states "What a character who does not have this feat is limited to or restricted from doing." (CRB pg. 113) so it's not like a feat's normal section could grant abilities even if it wanted to (which it doesn't, it only explains what the penalties are without the feat). Thus, the feat cannot possibly be the rule part that grants additional attacks.
A general rule never gets quoted by those people.
Fun fact: Since the normal section only applies to people who don't have the feat, if the normal section did indeed grant additional attacks, taking the feat would remove that option.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hrm, the "normal" clause of MWF supports the idea that more arms means more attacks:
Multiweapon Fighting (Combat)
(...)
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.)
So these additional attacks do not depend on the feat (appearantly opposed to 3.5), but come from additional arms. It's just that the feat reduces the horrible penalties significantly.
But, I know, that's a Bestiary book and there are those contradicting examples for players (alchemist arms, eidolon arms etc.). Let's move on Kasathas as PCs:
KASATHAS**
(...)
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.
Seems clear to me. It's a nice ability to can be used for more weapons, but the additional damage isn't that much and requires a full-attack. Sometimes you might be better off with equipping very different things on all these arms: Weapon, shield, potion, wand etc..
|
One of my players wants to play the Kasatha race which has four arms and uses the multi-weapon fighting feat assuming he would gain 4 attacks during a full-round action.
As can be seen from prior responses, people have come up with all sorts of strained arguments to believe that the general rules on how extra arms impact number of attacks do not mean what the text clearly seems to indicate and dozens of published examples confirm.
However, none of that is relevant here. You are specifically looking at a Kasatha... and there it is quite explicitly stated that they have one primary hand and three off hands, which can be used for any purpose (e.g. attacking) requiring a free hand;
"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."
Inner Sea Races
I am trying to determine if this is fair as I can see the rogue on their team becoming quite jealous and I'm wondering whether I should just stick to the core races.
This is the real issue. The Kasatha race is inherently more powerful than any of the core races. Ergo, if you allow one player to have a Kasatha you are potentially creating an imbalance that you may need to adjust for by giving other players similar options, introducing story benefits (e.g. a player with a weaker character turns out to be related to the founder of a secret society that can give the group leads on important magical treasures), or otherwise arranging things to keep things fun for everyone.
The easiest way to accomplish that is generally just to not allow Kasatha or other powerful races.
Ok, I'll play nice one more time, even though I'm sick of people making arguments that I've already disproven, especially when they don't even bother to adress my posts. It's just a waste of everyone's time.
Hrm, the "normal" clause of MWF supports the idea that more arms means more attacks:
It alludes to some rules that it presumes exist, that is true. But as I've shown in my last post (that you apparently didn't bother to read), the normal section of a feat can't make rules. So where are the alluded to rules? The feat mentions the TWF rules, but I have shown with absolut certainty that they don't allow attacks for a third of forth weapon. In order for the feat to alter 'multiweapon fighting penalties', there need to be mutliweapon fighting rules.
Show me where those rules the feat alludes to are. Show me or admit they don't exist.
Until you can actually show me the underlying rules that you claim tie additional arms to extra attacks, you're wrong on the grounds of Pathfinder being a permissive rule system. In Pathfidner, you can only do what the rules say you can do. If you can't find a rule, admit that additional arms don't grant extra attacks.
Seems clear to me. It's a nice ability to can be used for more weapons, but the additional damage isn't that much and requires a full-attack.
You know, a quick search in the CRB (or the combat rules aviable online if you don't have a PDF of the CRB) would have shown you why you are wrong:
Proof:
"Off-Hand Weapon: When you deal damage with a weapon in your off hand, you add only 1/2 your Strength bonus.
If you have a Strength penalty, the entire penalty applies." (CRB pg. 179)
That rule (from the damage roll explanation) doesn't talk about TWF at all, and yet it gives rules for off hand wapons. This alone shows that the Kasatha description does not mandatorily refer to additional attacks. And if you're wondering how one could have more than one off-hand weapon, read this FAQ.
There're more instances that show this:
"If you wield a second weapon in your off hand" (CRB pg. 202) That's the TWF rules. You need to already have an off hand in order to be in a position to make use of the TWF rules.
"You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are using an offhand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon)" (CRB pg. 150) That's from the buckler description. It mentions having an off-hand when using a two-handed weapon, i.e. in a situation where TWF isn't possible.
"you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks." That's from the already linked Armor Spikes FAQ. It says your off-hand is unaviable (which means it must still exist!) when in a position unable to TWF.
Seriously, how hard is it to accept the fact that an ability that doesn't mention the word "attack" doesn't grant additional attacks? Look at how the TWF rules are worded ("If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon."), do you see anything even remotely similar to that in the description of either the Kasatha's Multi-Armed or the Multiweapon Fighting feat? Do you? Does either one make a mention of "extra attacks"?
Ok, I'll play nice one more time, even though I'm sick of people making arguments that I've already disproven, especially when they don't even bother to adress my posts. It's just a waste of everyone's time.
Then you merely need to just state there is no written rule that confirms you get additional attacks with multiple arms. And, you can give the advice that it is up to the GM, but a ruling it that way will often be imbalanced. Then maybe there would be less spiraling arguments.
Regardless, that hasn't stopped you from being able to transform those extra hands into claws or similar for extra attacks anyway, so a lot of the balance is thrown off regardless of the ruling. Which is a comment that I've felt you ignored.
And so while I agree with you that Kasatha can be munchkin'd and should probably only be played with other Kasathas. I have never found your quoting to never prove anything for me as I have never seen Creatures and Players behave differently in rules, its just if an abilities bypass or changes a rule. So in any case there is a hole of the rules for the GM to decide to fill or not, which society play has decided to not allow for players.
By RAW, I've yet to see a successful argument that MWF gives you extra attacks or nonsense...
However-
Depending on your party balance, a Urogue will need 3 extra offhand attacks (and therefore 3 extra sneak attacks) to keep pace with the rest of the party. At higher levels they'll still almost certainly lag behind.
In a less optimized group, your 4 armed friend will start off very powerful in terms of damage but almost certainly fail to keep pace as the levels go by.
That said, if you've allowed a powerful race you should allow the other players to have similarly powerful options.
Since I think it is relevant...
Kasatha are featured in Iron Gods as a Juju Zombie and skeletons. The Juju Zombie in particular is strange here since it fights with two blades and also makes 2 slam attacks.
The Skeleton template states that they gain a claw attack with each hand. It seems strange that a Kasatha can be unable to use two arms for attacks but if they're dead they suddenly can gain two more. Bonus humor if your Kasatha is wielding 4 punching daggers.
Then you merely need to just state there is no written rule that confirms you get additional attacks with multiple arms.
I did exactly that. First post, second sentence. I gave plenty of explanation, all supported by evidence. Hours before any dissenting posts. Evidently it was not enough, because apparently some people refuse to accept the truth.
The proper course of action for anyone who wants to disagree with me would be to make a counter-argument supported by rules. That is how you do a proper discussion, you pick up the other person(s)'s argument(s) and disprove them. If you can't, you accept them (or at least you stay quiet).
I am not the one who broke the basic etiquette of civilized discussion. I am not the one who blatantly ignored what other people have said to state an unfounded claim that was already shown to be wrong. So what are you blaming me for? Do you think not listening to what others say is how one should communicate with people?
And, you can give the advice that it is up to the GM, but a ruling it that way will often be imbalanced.
I literally did exactly that. I talked about the pro and con of allowing what the player wants, advising to be cautious. Every ruling is up to the GM, so I didn't spell that out, but me talking about what would happen if the GM allowed 4WF after I had already shown that to be non-RAW could only talk about a houseruling.
Regardless, that hasn't stopped you from being able to transform those extra hands into claws or similar for extra attacks anyway, so a lot of the balance is thrown off regardless of the ruling. Which is a comment that I've felt you ignored.
First, comment by whom? Second, I did warn against races that grant unusual things in general. My warning actually includes Kasatha twice, once for the arms (which was not just for the weapon part, as I had already shown that to be not allowed) and once for the ability scores.
I have never found your quoting to never prove anything for me
You don't believe evidence? Seriously? Presuming you didn't intend to use a double negative...
That statement does however explain why you're blaming the person who insists on evidence being presented, instead of the people who just make some claim with no regard for what others said or what the actual truth is.
The [Kasatha] Juju Zombie in particular is strange here since it fights with two blades and also makes 2 slam attacks.
The Skeleton template states that they gain a claw attack with each hand. It seems strange that a Kasatha can be unable to use two arms for attacks but if they're dead they suddenly can gain two more.
Both of these things are totally fine and possible to do for a Kasatha PC (without those templates!). I think you aren't familiar with how the rules for natural weapons work. Natural weapons do have rules that say you can attack with all you have during a full attack*. Manufactured weapons don't have such a rule, instead they come with iterative attacks (which natural weapons don't), and allow the TWF option.
Also, "unable to use two arms for attacks" is completely wrong. If a Kasatha wields four weapons, they can make any of their normal attacks with any of these weapons. If they can make four or more attacks, they can use all four weapons during the same full-attack action. I never said otherwise.
*) "you receive additional attack rolls for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack (as noted by the race or ability that grants the attacks)." (CRB pg. 182)
Show me where those rules the feat alludes to are. Show me or admit they don't exist.
Until you can actually show me the underlying rules that you claim tie additional arms to extra attacks, you're wrong on the grounds of Pathfinder being a permissive rule system. In Pathfidner, you can only do what the rules say you can do. If you can't find a rule, admit that additional arms don't grant extra attacks.
The "normal" clause serves as a reminder. In the case of MWF it reminds the reader of rules that are appearantly missing. I readily admit there is appearantly no separate, explicit rule "additional arms automatically give you additional attacks".
But the strict contrary rule "additional arms never automatically give you additional attacks" isn't true either. It can be disproven with a single example, let's pick the marilith. There is no explicit rule granting her these many longsword attacks, there is just Multiweapon Mastery which reduces the penalties to 0.
I readily admit there is appearantly no separate, explicit rule "additional arms give you additional attacks".
Thank you!
But the strict contrary rule "additional arms never automatically give you additional attacks" isn't true either. It can be disproven with a single example, let's pick the marilith. There is no explicit rule granting her these many longsword attacks, there is just Multiweapon Mastery which reduces the penalties to 0.
Exactly as you say, "There is no explicit rule granting her these many longsword attacks". The stat block gives a full attack routine not doable by a PC. But not everything in a monster's stat block is explained by rules. Like, there isn't a rule that gives a tiger its pounce (or scent, or rake, or natural weapons, or higher than normal damage with the bite), except that the stat block says so.
So you're actually right that "the strict contrary rule "additional arms never automatically give you additional attacks" isn't true"... however, it is true for PCs, which have to follow the rules and not what a stat block says.
Like, there isn't a rule that gives a tiger its pounce (or scent, or rake, or natural weapons, or higher than normal damage with the bite), except that the stat block says so.
The tiger gets pounce from its special attacks - that's not the case for the marilith. And pounce is clearly defined in the appendix, like all the examples in brackets. The marilith's ability (use arm 3 to 6) has no name and accordingly isn't in the appendix - the (IMO) most obvious explanation is that it's not a special ability at all but just the application of a general rule.
But to think it works in reverse, that 'rules' applied to monsters should be applied to players is a logical fallacy. Monsters get abilities because the designer thought the stat block fits the image they were going for.If you want to use the Marilith as a guideline for what players can do, the Marilith is stated up to use every conceivable limb to attack at the same time, other than lacking a head butt and a bite. If you want to use the argument that since Marilith can strike with all 6 arms, so every player race should do the same, you can just as easily argue it also gets a tail strike so every race with a tail should also get a tail strike, and probably 2 kicks as well.
Player characters aren't monsters. Don't try to work from a monster's stat block to justify a PC.
The only reason we bring this up, is that there is obviously a hole in the rules from the developers some where. Every single other ability is stated and written. We are not pulling anything out of our ass since there is a rule for a tail strike if a creature is given one on a stat block. There is still no way the Marilith or any other multi-armed creature is actually capable of using their extra limbs unless a GM makes up a rule for them to do so.
None of whats written or quoted will really change our mind. We are just noting that theres a rule error here, and that it is reasonable for a GM to decide either way. I'm sure most of use even giving this argument are perfectly fine that player's cannot use the limbs this way.
I have just always given my opinion that because every combat rule has been shared between monsters and players that I would fill in the hole in the rules that way. (I would just not allow Kasatha etc in most cases, but some one Polymorphing I might allow)
Then we could move on to NPCs: Iron Gods #4 has kasatha rogues with 3 shortswords. Iron Gods #6 has a kasatha fighter with 2 chainsaws - which are two-handed.
But actually research gave me a different insight: Appearantly there was a shift in Paizo's stance. Older books support the idea of using 3+ manufactured weapons at once (MWF as a feat, Iron Gods NPCs), newer books (and FAQs) don't. It peaks in Starfinder's kasatha entry which explicitely allows only the usage of 2 weapons in the same round. Starfinder is not Pathfinder, but it's partially the same people behind it, so its rules show the attitude back then.
Personally, I will stick with the more fun version, the older one. Nonkasatha players will have to be compensated, but that's always the case with someone playing a stronger race. I don't see any point in arguing about this topic anymore, so I am out here.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In order to run a game of Pathfinder a GM needs to know how the rules work. They need to know how the bonuses to hit and damage for any given creature were calculated so that they can adjust them when things are different. Not every Marilith is going to be armed with six longswords. Spells and other effects are going to adjust to hit and damage values constantly... so long as the GM knows how they should interact with the existing values.
Fortunately, the rules for creatures with 3+ arms are perfectly clear... one arm can make a primary weapon attack and all the other arms can make off-hand weapon attacks. From there everything follows the normal rules for attacks of those types (e.g. off-hand melee attacks get +0.5x bonus Str damage).
We know this both because the MWF (and other) rules say it (barring strained 'interpretations' that they mean something else), and because that is how every single stat block with 3+ arms being used for weapon attacks work.
So for all the claims that 'we just cannot know'... any GM who follows the rule that creatures have one primary hand weapon attack and one off-hand weapon attack for each additional arm can work out how the stat blocks for every such creature Paizo has ever published for Pathfinder 1st edition were calculated... which effectively makes that 'the rule'. Even if we pretend that it wasn't obviously so all along.
It's as if people go out of their way to deny fun from happening. Lol.
If you allow someone to play a Kasatha, you better let them attack with every hand, otherwise you aren't letting them play a Kasatha. Nobody picks the alien with four arms to be the same as the boring freaking human with two arms.
It's actually the easiest interpretation for the four armed alien to attack with every hand.
You have to be a freaking @$$hole to tell a player they can't use half their arms for the sake of balancing them against humanoids with two arms. There is no balancing them. Don't do that! Stop it. They have twice as many arms, that is an advantage.
Let them have it, or don't let them play at all.
I am SO GLAD that I don't play with the people on here actually arguing against the Kasatha getting more attacks with four arms than someone who has two arms. Can you count? I would walk away from your lame, no fun having table SO fast.
I bet Druids and Polymorph can only change into things that can be balanced against humans, too. And if not, why not? Probably should just let the Kasatha have its extra attacks...
It's as if people go out of their way to deny fun from happening. Lol.
If you allow someone to play a Kasatha, you better let them attack with every hand, otherwise you aren't letting them play a Kasatha. Nobody picks the alien with four arms to be the same as the boring freaking human with two arms.
Can you please inform the Starfinder Design team? :P
It's a disease, man.
If they are willing to nerf everything to be the same, then there's no convincing them otherwise. Their minds are wired in such a way that everything has to be the same dull shade of boring. If something is clearly better, more fun or vibrant, than this monotonous fog of boredom it is certainly going to get the banhammer... or worse, nerfed to be as boring as everything else.
Someone once told me that I could be a Strix, but I had to take the clipped wings... no, I think I will just play with people who don't hate fun. Thank you, though.
This isn't the rules arena, though.
This is the advice forum.
And, honestly, allowing a Kasatha to take advantage of its extra arms is the best advice possible.
Why? First and foremost, because they have extra freaking arms! How many weapons can you wield? Four. Good enough for me, let's move on to more interesting and important things. Done.
And secondly, because it doesn't matter. They might appear to be powerful at the beginning, but it will, what's the word, balance itself out as the game progresses. Even if they are TWF with 2H weapons, it will all be about the same before you hit double digit levels. There is no power discrepancy between the players, because they all can be a Kasatha if they want. And if they choose something with two arms when they could have chosen something with four, well, that's on them.
Lots of things are overpowered at early levels. Do you nerf the Slumber Witch or whoever is spamming Color Spray? Nobody else can end encounters like that, better nerf them so everyone is the same, right?
Absolutely not. If there is a Kobold in the party, we don't nerf EVERYONE to be on par with the Kobold so he doesn't feel weak. You made your choice, now play it. Why is it hard to understand that there might be stronger than normal options, too?
So who cares enough to tell the player who wants to be a four armed alien that they CAN'T be the alien they want to be in a FANTASY GAME?
Who cares enough to tell that player that they CAN be the four armed alien they want to be, BUT can only use two arms?
My advice; don't. Don't be that GM that cares SO MUCH about something SO TRIVIAL, that you deny someone their fun in a fantasy game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, in the case of the giant with 100 arms, rather than having you roll 100 dice which would be a nightmarish bogging down of the game they gave them this
A hekatonkheires carries several dozen weapons of various types in its hundred hands, but when it attacks in melee, you don’t have to resolve each of these as a separate attack. Instead, when the titan attacks with its weapons, it rolls its attacks normally (either one attack for a standard action, or four as a full-round action) and hits every creature in its reach each time an attack roll exceeds that creature’s AC. If any such attack roll results in a possible critical hit, the critical is applied to one creature of the hekatonkheires’s choosing. The hekatonkheires can choose to deal bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage as a free action on each separate hit.
In the case of the quickwood, they ALSO address this
A quickwood has dozens of long roots, but can only attack with up to three of them in any given round. If the quickwood uses its pull ability to pull a target within reach of its bite attack, it can immediately make a free bite attack with a +4 bonus on its attack roll against that target.
It seems disingenuous to use those examples then not point out that there are SPECIFIC rules overriding the general.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If someone is willing to dedicate a day out of their week to your game for the next few years, I think it's best to reward them with a fun experience that allows them whatever escape from reality they are looking for.
As the GM, if that means doing extra work to include a four armed alien that attacks more than a human, then so be it. That's on the GM, not the player. They want to play a Kasatha, and you KNOW d@mn well that they are expecting the extra arms to be more than show. I would be massively disappointed if the average GM can't make the necessary tweaks to their precious plan in order to make it happen without too much of a hassle.
From the player's perspective, it should be as simple as "I think it would be cool to be a Kasatha..."
If someone is willing to dedicate a day out of their week to your game for the next few years, I think it's best to reward them with a fun experience that allows them whatever escape from reality they are looking for.
As the GM, if that means doing extra work to include a four armed alien that attacks more than a human, then so be it. That's on the GM, not the player. They want to play a Kasatha, and you KNOW d@mn well that they are expecting the extra arms to be more than show. I would be massively disappointed if the average GM can't make the necessary tweaks to their precious plan in order to make it happen without too much of a hassle.
From the player's perspective, it should be as simple as "I think it would be cool to be a Kasatha..."
I agree...if im not letting them use the four arms, im probably just not allowing the race at all. There's plenty of reason for it, they ARE significantly more powerful than core races. But in a game thats wide open for options, at least its not maneuvering alternate racial traits to gain +4 to a stat from teifling or aasimar.
Also where the f%@@ did this "monsters use different rules" line come from...thats literally one of the major design CHANGES in pf2, in pf1 the monsters use the same basic ruleset as pcs.
Also where the f@!! did this "monsters use different rules" line come from...thats literally one of the major design CHANGES in pf2, in pf1 the monsters use the same basic ruleset as pcs.
I don't know.
I modify A LOT of monsters in my games, and find that I can reverse engineer most of them following the rules used for players. Sure, there are some things that I can't explain, and I don't need to or waste any time trying, but absolutely most of it is exactly the rules I am used to for players.
There are monster feats, but players can take them if they qualify anyways. Which makes it a moot point. Lots of monsters are given additional bonus feats beyond their HD without explanation, but I don't worry about it from a rules perspective, ever.
I always expect that the rules for action economy, how feats behave, what spells and spell-like abilities do, movement speeds and interactions with the environment are the same rules for both monsters and players. Monsters don't get economy breaking Legendary Actions anymore, so I can't think of anything that monsters follow different rules than the players.
I would like examples of monsters having separate rules than players, but it's not really the topic of this discussion. Or it might be exactly the topic of this discussion if Multiweapon Fighting happens to be THE example. Lol.
One of my players wants to play the Kasatha race which has four arms and uses the multi-weapon fighting feat assuming he would gain 4 attacks during a full-round action.
Technically no. He gets them from being a Kasatha. MWF makes them have less of a penailty.
Every example of a creature/player with more than two arm that I'm aware of specifically says/has it in the stat block if it can be used for extra attacks or not. Is there an exception?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Perfectly clear. So a giant with 50 heads and 100 arms gets 100 attacks?
As Ryan pointed out, there is a specific exception in that case to avoid having to roll 100 attacks.
Indeed, the fact that the rules for that creature specifically make an exception ("you don’t have to resolve each of these as a separate attack") again establishes what the general rule is.
The Quickwood has no arms at all and is making natural (i.e. non manufactured weapon) attacks, and thus irrelevant to the topic.
Monsters are monsters. They get abilities based on "that sounds about right." Not rules meant to build player characters.
Demonstrably false. In Pathfinder, monsters are built with exactly the same rules as players. Many of them have specific abilities which are not available to players, but for things common to both PCs and NPCs the rules work exactly the same.
If you want to give Kasatha players 3 off hand attacks, that is fine. The way I read things, that isn't RAW and I'm fairly certain it isn't RAI either.
...and I find it equally clear that the intent of the written rules was always that you get one primary hand weapon attack and one off-hand weapon attack per additional arm after the first. Interpretations to the contrary seem strained to the point of absurdity.
"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."
Bestiary 4
The term "off hand" has only one meaning in Pathfinder. It is a kind of manufactured weapon attack with specific to hit and damage adjustments.
Likewise, "purposes that require free hands"... you can use a free hand to retrieve something from your pack, raise a potion up to drink it, cast a spell with somatic components, or make an attack (either unarmed or with a weapon).
Pathfinder did away with the arms = attacks thing.
There are literally dozens of examples proving that is untrue.
If someone wanted to play a strange defensive build, they could equip all 4 arms with tower shields. You could gain total cover in all 4 directions. What are you trying to accomplish here? Maybe some super turtle psychic build?
What are you trying to accomplish here? LMAO. I literally laughed until I stopped.
|
|
There is a devcernable tendency to assign 1 attack per limb that the designer can imagine being used for attacks when designing monsters. There is no such general rule. Comb through everything that talks about monsters (or PCs), you won't find it.
The Multiweapon Fighting rules are easily located and have been cited many times;
"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."This says that creatures can make attacks at stated penalties with all of their hands, have one primary hand and 'hands - 1' off hands, and then directs the reader to the Two-Weapon Fighting rules... where the modifiers to attack / damage and other rules for "primary hand" and "off hand" attacks can be found.
All you'll find are examples.
...which consistently follow the stated rule and the standard modifiers deriving therefrom. Thus confirming that the rule is being interpreted correctly.
There are also several other rules (e.g. Kasatha entries in Bestiary 4 and Advanced Race Guide, multi-armed Sahuagin rules, extra arm mutation, etc) which follow and confirm the general rule cited above.
In Pathfinder extra arms = extra attacks unless there is a specific exception changing that (e.g. Vestigial Limb). It is the stated "Normal" condition for creatures with more than two arms.
If someone wanted to play a strange defensive build, they could equip all 4 arms with tower shields. You could gain total cover in all 4 directions. What are you trying to accomplish here? Maybe some super turtle psychic build?
Wouldn't that require four seperate actions though?
If someone wanted to play a strange defensive build, they could equip all 4 arms with tower shields. You could gain total cover in all 4 directions. What are you trying to accomplish here? Maybe some super turtle psychic build?Wouldn't that require four seperate actions though?
Turtles are slow...