|
I don't see how text about penalties can possibly be read as determining what bonus to apply. Put another way, the text is clearly talking about attack penalties because those are the only penalties which exist for multi-weapon fighting. Trying to apply "no penalties" to Str bonuses to damage, which have nothing to do with multiweapon fighting, leads nowhere.
How do you define "it takes half of the normal bonus to damage"? A bonus?
And the reduction to the strength bonus to damage when using an off-hand has a lot to do with multi-weapon fighting.
Your hypothetic Kasata with two two-handed weapons, what strength bonus to damage use on the off-hands weapon? strength bonus x1.5 or strength bonus x0.5?
What bonus to power attack does he use? The CRB rules have no rule for off-hands two-handed weapons, so the question was never asked, but you are arguing that he gets -1/+3, -1/+1 or even -1/+1.5 (50% of -1/+3, as power attack says "This bonus to damage is halved (–50%) if you are making an attack with an off-hand weapon")?
This kind of gluttony for more damage end generating more problems that can be resolved by the pretense that "it clearly can be done".
Your hypothetic Kasata with two two-handed weapons, what strength bonus to damage use on the off-hands weapon? strength bonus x1.5 or strength bonus x0.5?
Given that an off-hand provides x0.5 Str and Power Attack, for a) normal two-handed and b) TWF and c) Multi-Weapon Fighting, the answer seems to be x1 for the second two-handed weapon. Keep it simple and add the two off-hand bonuses up.
So the maximum damage output is slightly less than doubled - which is relevant only for full-attacks anyway. I agree martial players shouldn't try to solve all problems with just more damage, but it's also up to the GM to provide alternatives.
The whole "hands of effort" thing actually makes sense if you really think about it for a second. If TWFing with a weapond in each hand prevent you from attacking with the Armor Spikes, why should using both hands on the same weapon be any different?
Maybe it helps people envision it if they don't think about strength bonus, but about time spend - an attack with a greatsword takes so much time that there isn't space left in the 6s round for a blade boot-kick or a armor spike-bodycheck. A shortsword attack is resolved quicker and there this is enough time (two shortsword attacks, one with each hand, however again take too long to resolve to do anything else in that 6 seconds).
I'd like to point out that the concept of the off-hand being occupied by wielding a two-handed weapon is actually mentioned in the CRB, so it was not invented for the respective forum posts or the FAQ:
"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 doesn't make a ruling (!), but it talks about "using your off hand", which is then logically unable to do other things. Under the presumption that a two-handed being only has one off hand, obviously.
SInce I think we all agree that game balance isn't actually the issue here, there could be a different solution, one that does not clash with the above mentioned concept of only having one off-hand (Paizo basically enforced that intended/presumed but not distinctively written rule when they made the FAQ). The Steel Headbutt AAT sidesteps the problem altogether by simply granting a bonus attack ("a fighter can deliver a headbutt with his helm as part of a full attack action. This headbutt is in addition to his normal attacks, and is made using the fighter’s base attack bonus – 5."). Armor spikes could work similarly (although there needs to be some cost involved lest every melee ever uses them).
If I were two write Armor Spikes, or adjust them for a home game, I'd change the description to this:
Armor Spikes: You can have spikes added to your armor, which allow you to deal extra piercing damage (see “spiked armor” on Table 6–4) on a successful grapple attack. The spikes count as a martial weapon. If you are not proficient with them, you take a –4 penalty on grapple checks when you try to use them. An enhancement bonus to a suit of armor does not improve the spikes’ effectiveness, but the spikes can be made into magic weapons in their own right.
People are quick to nerf the Kasatha with this same "hands' worth of effort" BS, too.
If anything, it was Paizo who did that "nerf", because they removed the rule text that granted multi-armed creatures additional attacks. Since Kasatha were invented by Paizo, they never did have those additional attacks, though, and thus no nerfing was done for them. People enforcing the actual written rules is not a nerf, that's called "playing the game".
Nobody seems to have any concerns about the "hands' worth of effort" it takes to pull off a bite and a gore attack with the same head, though.
Because natural attacks don't use the hands system at all, while all attacks with manufactured weapons (and unarmed strikes, but that's a different issue) do.
Your hypothetic Kasata with two two-handed weapons, what strength bonus to damage use on the off-hands weapon? strength bonus x1.5 or strength bonus x0.5?
If this FAQ makes a general ruling, 1xStr, because the two effects operate on the same level of specificity. If that's not a general rule, and only what the CRB says, than the two-handed bonus is tied to the weapon itself, while the off-hand reduction is based on usage, and thus is the more specific rule in this case.
What bonus to power attack does he use? The CRB rules have no rule for off-hands two-handed weapons, so the question was never asked, but you are arguing that he gets -1/+3, -1/+1 or even -1/+1.5 (50% of -1/+3, as power attack says "This bonus to damage is halved (–50%) if you are making an attack with an off-hand weapon")?
-1/+1, because Pathfinder handles multiple percentile modifications additively. We add +0.5 for two-handedness and subtract 0.5 for off-handed-use.
Do you happen to know what attack penalties the Kasatha is taking on the chainsaws?
Female kasatha fighter 15 (Pathfinder RPG Bestiary 4 174)
LE Medium humanoid (kasatha)
Init +7; Senses Perception +18
DEFENSE
AC 27, touch 14, flat-footed 23 (+12 armor, +3 Dex, +1 dodge,
+1 shield)
hp 192 (15d10+105)
Fort +14, Ref +8, Will +10 (+14 vs. fear)
Defensive Abilities bravery +4
OFFENSE
Speed 30 ft.
Melee +1 shock chainsaw +16/+11/+6 (3d6+5/18–20 plus
1d6 electricity), +1 chainsaw +16/+11 (3d6+4/18–20)
Ranged dagger +19 (1d4+2/19–20)
Special Attacks weapon training (heavy blades +3, firearms +2,
thrown +1)
TACTICS
Before Combat Metweska activates both of her chainsaws
before combat if she can—doing so may well alert the PCs to
her presence in area D8 before they arrive.
During Combat Metweska prefers to take full-attack actions
with her chainsaws if possible, and closes to melee with
foes as quickly as she can, trying to corner them so that any
attempt to back off provokes attacks of opportunity. She
focuses her attacks on lightly armored foes, knowing that it’s
best to take out a party’s healer or magical support as soon
as possible.
Morale Metweska is loyal to Deacon Hope, but not a fanatic.
If reduced to fewer than 40 hit points, she attempts to
flee to the command deck; she knows of Ophelia, and if
service to Deacon Hope becomes too perilous, she shifts
her loyalty to the gargoyle. If you wish, you can have the
PCs encounter her again on the command deck, at which
point Metweska flees again if reduced to fewer than 40 hit
points. Whether she flees to Silver Mount to serve
another powerful minion there or departs for points
beyond is left to you.
STATISTICS
Str 12, Dex 17, Con 20, Int 10, Wis 16, Cha 8
Base Atk +15; CMB +16; CMD 30
Feats Bleeding Critical, Critical Focus, Critical Mastery,
Dodge, Greater Weapon Focus (chainsaw), Improved
Critical (chainsaw), Improved Initiative, Improved
Two-Weapon Fighting, Iron Will, Staggering Critical,
Throw Anything, Toughness, Two-Weapon Defense,
Two-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus (chainsaw), Weapon
Specialization (chainsaw)
Skills Perception +18, Survival +21
Languages Androffan, Kasathan
SQ armor training 4, desert runner, desert stride, jumper,
multi-armed, stalker
Combat Gear inferno grenades (4); Other Gear +3 full plate,
+1 chainsaw, +1 shock chainsaw, daggers (6), belt of mighty
constitution +4
I have no idea where the numbers come from. The attack roll penalty seems to be -3, that doesn't make sense. The main-hand attack appears to have +2 from strength and possibly something else, while the off-hand attack is definitely at a reduced bonus but still seems to be at +1 from strength and possibly something else.
There seems to be an unaccounted for +1 on attack and damage rolls, and a +0.5 strength bonus on the TWF bonus attack.
I've played Iron Gods, we found 1 Chainsaw through the entire AP. Also we found zero 'civilized' Kasatha that used tech.
The entity in question is an NPC you fight in the wreck of the Divinity (recreation deck) in book 6. Doesn't seem to be too story relevant though, and seems easy to miss if you didn't explore every single room.
The whole "hands of effort" thing actually makes sense if you really think about it for a second.
Sure, it makes as much sense as anything else. But it (a) isn't properly spelled out in the rulebook, and (b) fixes a 'problem' I doubt anyone was having (since greatsword + armor spikes isn't a particularly powerful combo).
I'd like to point out that the concept of the off-hand being occupied by wielding a two-handed weapon is actually mentioned in the CRB, so it was not invented for the respective forum posts or the FAQ:
"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 doesn't make a ruling (!), but it talks about "using your off hand", which is then logically unable to do other things. Under the presumption that a two-handed being only has one off hand, obviously.
Until the concept of non-literal hands was introduced, that sort of thing was generally interpreted to be about using a literal hand to help wield a two-handed weapon, while armor spikes don't use any hands at all.
|
I have no idea where the numbers come from. The attack roll penalty seems to be -3, that doesn't make sense. The main-hand attack appears to have +2 from strength and possibly something else, while the off-hand attack is definitely at a reduced bonus but still seems to be at +1 from strength and possibly something else.
There seems to be an unaccounted for +1 on attack and damage rolls, and a +0.5 strength bonus on the TWF bonus attack. Not that stat blocks were a reliable source.
Yeah, the numbers in that are confusing. It seems to be counting it as having a 14 STR instead of a 12.
For attack bonus, I get: +15 BAB +1 STR +1 enhancement +1 WFocus +1 GWFocus = +19 before TWF penalties.
The stat block lists +16. So either it's taking a -3 penalty for TWF, which appears nowhere, or it's counting as +2 STR then -4 penalty (same as a 1-handed weapon), or there's a bonus somewhere I don't see.
Supporting that is damage, for which I get: +1 STR +1 enhancement +2 WSpecialization = +4 before off-hand adjustment.
The stat block lists +5 on the first chainsaw and +4 on the second. This would, again, support a 14 STR, 1x STR on main-hand and .5 STR on off-hand.
So, while statblocks aren't reliable, this one definitely isn't making a strong case for 1.5x STR or even 1x STR, since the only think that makes sense for the reduced damage on the 2nd chainsaw is .5 STR (either reducing the STR bonus to 1 for a 14 STR or 0 for a 12 STR).
And again, since we have a direct statement from a designer that you can't get more than .5 STR with a weapon in the off-hand, Kasatha directly state in their Multi-armed ability that they are off-hands, and the only statblock we have to reference is at best inconclusive or possibly in support of the reduced STR modifier, I'm going to stick with Kasathas get .5x STR with an off-hand weapon, regardless of how many hands they are using on it. And they take attack penalties equivalent to having a 1-handed weapon in the off-hand if they are using a 2-handed weapon.
Random thought: A GM who allows a kasatha but restricts the usable hands might end up with a player who stacks four claws or combines a two-handed weapon with two claws.
Four claws is (altogether) x4 Power Attack bonus and x4 Str bonus per round, beating two two-handed weapons at full-attacks - at least before they get iterative attacks. Damage dice are smaller, but you don't suffer from any TWF / MWF AB penalty.
Two-handed weapon with two claws gives you the usual advantages of two-handed at non-full-attacks, and the claws (now as secondary natural attacks) provide exactly the x0.5 Power Attack and Str bonus you would have gotten for manufactured off-hand weapons. Since you can't get iteratives on off-hand number 2+ anyway, changing to natural attacks is no real loss here.
And there is no rule that says you get to attack with multiple off-hands.
There is a rule
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.
|
And there is no rule that says you get to attack with multiple off-hands.There is a rule
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.
Thats not a rules source
|
|
And there is no rule that says you get to attack with multiple off-hands.There is a rule
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.
That feat changes the modifier, it doesn't give the ability to attack with more than 2 weapons, you need to get that from other sources. Exactly how it works with two weapon fighting.
Sure, it makes as much sense as anything else. But it (a) isn't properly spelled out in the rulebook, and (b) fixes a 'problem' I doubt anyone was having (since greatsword + armor spikes isn't a particularly powerful combo).
No disagreement on either part. It's all part of the problem that Paizo has this utterly ridiculous idea that despite the CRB being called "rulebook" it should be more of a guideline thing (I have to search up the dev's posts on that one of these days...). There a lot of aspects where we're supposed to use common sense (ignoring that we don't live in a turn-based world or a world with different races), and the FAQ is made to keep the dev's vision of the game "pure", if you will.
Until the concept of non-literal hands was introduced, that sort of thing was generally interpreted to be about using a literal hand to help wield a two-handed weapon, while armor spikes don't use any hands at all.
Let me just say I question the wisdom of using the term "off hand" when no actual hand needs to be involved. Of course, this is from the same writers that thought having three different uses of "attack" was a smart move...
Yeah, the numbers in that are confusing. It seems to be counting it as having a 14 STR instead of a 12.
I was thinking a +1 from Weapon Training. Or the writer just doesn't really understand the rules... in any case, the stat block is without any doubt erroneous, and thus stat blocks can't possibly be a relible source of how the rules are.
And they take attack penalties equivalent to having a 1-handed weapon in the off-hand if they are using a 2-handed weapon.
That's correct without any doubt, because the reduction based on the off-hand weapon type is only for light weapons. If the off-hand isn't light, you don't get that nice -2, no matter what the off-hand weapon is. One-hand, two-hand, ranged, whatever.
And there is no rule that says you get to attack with multiple off-hands.There is a ruleNormal: 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.
Did you even read what you quoted? Nowhere does it say a creature gets any additional or extra attacks. It only says what the penalties are when a creature makes such attacks. 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.", nothing like that appears in the MWF normal section.
Of course, a feat's normal section is explicitly not rule text: "Normal: What a character who does not have this feat is limited to or restricted from doing." (CRB pg. 113)
Do you see how it does not say "what a character without the feat is allowed to do"? It doesn't because it's the general rules that allow characters to do things.
The actual rule you're looking for is this:
"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." Know where that's from? The 3.5 Monster Manual (pg. 304)! Paizo copied almost the entire feat description of MWF but left that part out (or rather changed it to "This multi-armed creature is skilled at making attacks with multiple weapons." (B1 pg. 316)).
That feat changes the modifier, it doesn't give the ability to attack with more than 2 weapons, you need to get that from other sources. Exactly how it works with two weapon fighting.
And there is no rule that says you get to attack with multiple off-hands.There is a rule
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.
Then let me bold the Normal condition, the rules as they work if you do not have this feat.
If you have more than two arms and do not have multi-weapon fighting, the normal condition is
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.
If the reference to two-weapon fighting confuses you. I will include the reference.
Normal: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way you suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand. If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light.
Like Multi-Weapon fighting, a normal condition is established that states how things work if you do not have the feat. I.E. the feat is not required to fight with more than one weapon, penalties are assigned based on category of weapon used in your off hand.
Thats not a rules source
Nothing is a rules source if you choose to discount anything you disagree with, like the rulebook used in this case. (I just checked, the Bestiary is still listed as a rulebook by Paizo.)
For those of us that actually use the published rules, this has been in Pathfinder for as long as Pathfinder has been around.
|
|
@Volkard Abendroth
You are misreading the text.
"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."
Nothing in that text says that a creature with multiple hands can make an attack for each hand. It only says what is the modifier if it makes an attack with 3 or more hands.
To make 3 or more attacks with weapons you need a statblock that says that you get 3 or more attacks with weapons or a special ability that say that.
|
I think the problem stems from the feeling that the person using a greatsword + shield spikes is trying to game the system. The knee jerk reaction is oh, you're trying to cheat, lets put the kibosh on that!
The whole idea becomes silly once you start comparing it to a character that can shapechange and is able to full attack with a greatsword plus 6 natural attacks (which you can do as a 5th level metamorph alchemist, or anyone with monstrous physique 1). I've never had any issue with a dwarf who wants to fight with a greataxe and headbutt with their boulder helm or the like.
TWF with a Greatsword and Armor Spikes is not at all broken. It's just not allowed, under some bull$#!+ concept of balance.
Balance against what, exactly, I don't know. But whoever is in charge of game balance decided that no, TWF with a Greatsword and Armor Spikes is TOO much.
Nevermind air breathing octopus Wild Shape or the countless other ways to get around whatever BS "balance" they were aiming for.
The fact that it isn't allowed is a mistake, but it will never get officially fixed... I don't even know what I was expecting by asking the question out loud.
The entire concept of "hands' worth of effort" only nerfs melee martials... it doesn't balance anything. It doesn't even balance melee martials against other melee martials. Lol.
The rule/guideline/concept is stupid and can be ignored completely without affecting game balance. Literally no negative consequences are to be found by 100% eradicating "hands' worth of effort" from your mind and memory... never to be brought up again.
The "hands' worth of effort" concept is dead in the water. Let the turd sink. Flush it. And forget about it.
|
|
I was thinking a +1 from Weapon Training. Or the writer just doesn't really understand the rules... in any case, the stat block is without any doubt erroneous, and thus stat blocks can't possibly be a relible source of how the rules are.
That makes sense and would be what I was missing. That makes the main hand STR bonus unclear, because it could be x1 or x1.5 and would still be +1. The off hand chainsaw definitely looks like x.5 for +0.
TWF with a Greatsword and Armor Spikes is not at all broken. It's just not allowed, under some bull$#!+ concept of balance.
It's about perception, not reality. I'm very sure whoever wrote that FAQ didn't do any math, and didn't compare character builds. No, it's all about that such a build "is trying to game the system" as gnoams put it, and such thing must be prevented in order to keep the game pure! Greatsword+Armor Spikes is bypassing a limitation and when a martial does that, that's evil!
I think a big part of the issue is also that basically, someone at WotC thought that extra attacks were the most powerful things ever and thus almost nerved them to death (look at how weak cMonk/3.5 Monk is (was), how many downsides TWF has anyway, or the ridiculous prereqs for Whirlwind Attack!), and Paizo adopted that philosophy.
Just look at how long it took Paizo to release a non-overpriced way of enchanting unarmed strikes to see how overly cautious Paizo was with sacrificing 3.X's design principles.