There isn't consensus on this. No official ruling has stated one way or the other and we have a self conflicting statement from a member of the design team.
IMO it should be fine. The thing to keep in mind is that because the offhand isn't a light weapon both the main hand and offhand would suffer a -4 penalty to hit. The other thing you'll have to make a ruling on. The rules state that offhand weapons get 0.5 strength mod on damage rolls and that weapons wielded in two hands get 1.5 strength mod. Since the situation in question is an offhand being wielded by 2 hands as the GM you'll need to decide if one rule overwrites the other or if they just cancel each other out (resulting in a 1.0 strength mod).
I have my opinions but they are only that, opinions.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A (normal / two-armed) character without the vestigial arm could not attack with both a two-handed weapon and an off-hand weapon... ergo, that is an extra attack and cannot be done with a vestigial arm. It doesn't matter which hand(s) hold which weapons. You can't end up with more attacks because of the vestigial arm.
A (normal / two-armed) character without the vestigial arm could not attack with both a two-handed weapon and an off-hand weapon... ergo, that is an extra attack and cannot be done with a vestigial arm. It doesn't matter which hand(s) hold which weapons. You can't end up with more attacks because of the vestigial arm.
yes.... upgrading an attack from a 1-handed weapon to a 2-handed weapon is somehow "more attacks", whilst upgrading an unarmed strike to a light weapon isn't.....
There is an FAQ about vestigial arm, but a lot of people don't like it and say it's not a consensus. They bring up arguments about "hands of effort" and how it's BS.
Alchemist, Tentacle/Vestigial Arm: What does "extra attacks" mean for these discoveries?
It means "extra," as in "more than you would be able to make if you didn't have that discovery."For example, if you're low-level alchemist who uses two-weapon fighting, you can normally make two attacks per round (one with each weapon). If you take the tentacle discovery, on your turn you can make
* two weapon attacks but no tentacle attack,
* a weapon attack with your left hand plus a secondary tentacle attack, or
* a weapon attack with your right hand plus a secondary tentacle attack.
At no time can you make a left hand weapon attack, a right hand weapon attack, and a tentacle attack on the same turn because the tentacle discovery says it "does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round." This language is calling out that the tentacle is not a standard natural weapon and doesn't follow the standard rules for using natural weapons (which would normally allow you to make the natural weapon attack in addition to your other attacks).Likewise, if you instead took the vestigial arm discovery and put a weapon in that arm's hand, on your turn you can make
* a weapon attack with your left hand and one with your right hand,
* a weapon attack with your right hand and one with your vestigial arm, or
* a weapon attack with your left hand and one with your vestigial arm,
At no time can you make a left hand weapon attack, a right hand weapon attack, and a vestigial hand weapon attack on the same turn because the vestigial arm discovery says it "does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round."
The exact same restrictions would apply if your race had claws or you had some other ability to add claws to your limbs: the text of both discoveries says they do not give you any extra attacks per round, whether used as natural weapons, wielding manufactured weapons, or adding natural weapons to a limb that didn't originally have natural weapons.Remember that these two discoveries do not have any level requirements, and therefore are not especially powerful; permanently adding additional attacks per round is beyond the scope of a discovery available to 2nd-level alchemists.
But when I read this FAQ, it's clear to me that no, you can't TWF with vestigial arm in a way that you couldn't if you didn't have it.
My analysis of why is the same as CBDunkerson's.
Basically, if you couldn't do it without vestigial arm you can't do it with vestigial arm.
Vestigial arms basically lets you hold an extra thing, or have an extra free hand to do something without letting go of a thing, but it's not supposed to let you do more than you could normally do.
I say yes, but I am one of those people that think "hands' worth of effort" is clownshoes.
You are not gaining any extra attack using Vestigal Arm in this manner.
You can have a light weapon as an off-hand weapon and only suffer a -2 to your attacks with the TWF feat.
You still get 1.5x STR damage from the 2H weapon. And 0.5x from the off-hand.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is also the post by SKR that elaborates on the FAQ.
Consider the following situations.
A. A human has two weapon fighting. They normally wield two long swords. They get 2 attacks per round each at a -4. Now they take the vestigal arms discovery and upgrade those longswords to greatswords. They still get 2 attacks per round each at a -4. Now, because they can't normally make 2 attacks with 2 greatswords this is "more attacks".
B. A tengu has two weapon fighting, improved unarmed strike a bite attack and 2 claws. They normally get 5 attacks per round with the unarmed strikes taking a -2 each and the 3 natural attacks taking a -5 each. Now they take the vestigal arms discovery twice and use a pair of daggers instead of unarmed strikes. They still get 5 attacks with the daggers taking a -2 and the natural weapons taking a -5 each. Now, because they can't normally make 2 attacks with 2 daggers as well as their claw and bite attacks this is "more attacks".
Scenario B is explicitly given as an example of something that is allowed with the vestigal arms discovery in the linked post. It makes no sense to me that A would not be allowed when B is allowed.
Personally I ignore SKR's post on this topic because it goes against the official FAQ.
Ultimately as the GM you will have to decide how to interpret all the information you're provided.
The player is not asking for any extra attacks. The player wants to make two attacks via the TWF feat.
One attack is with a Greatsword held in the main-hand and the Vestigal Arm. It gets 1.5x STR bonus.
The other attack is probably a light weapon in the off-hand. It gets 0.5x STR bonus.
There is no hiccup. There is no Step 2.
The rules for alchemist vestigial arms and tentacles discoveries are all over the place and make absolutely zero sense...
Tentacle... grants an extra limb capable of making a secondary natural attack but it must replace one of your normal attacks for a round... seems a bit counter intuitive and like a waste of a discovery...
Vestigial arm... grants an extra arm that can do everything your normal arms can do, but can’t provide any extra attacks... ok at face value seems fine... but all of the rules arguments and clarifications, and back and forth on it make it an unusable mess... two-weapon fighting with a two handed weapon is not allowed but somehow two-weapon fighting with two manufactured weapons and two claws is... and yet at the same time isn’t? It is one or the other it can’t be both...
Also... “hands worth of effort” is the most stupid thing ever added to any ruling... two handed weapon + armor spikes with two-weapon fighting used to be a completely valid tactic... and something that various NPC entries from D&D even had prior to Pathfinder becoming its own thing... it honestly wouldn’t surprise me one bit if some of the NPC entries for some of the early pathfinder modules have this combination even.
The rules on this have been nitpicked to the point that the only thing that seems to be undisputed is “you can hold items in your extra limbs or use them to reload a ranged weapon”... and that second one actually violates the no extra actions ruling if you are to wield two firearms or two handcrossbows... yet everyone seems to give that fact a pass and let’s the combination work when it should be held to the same restrictions as someone using their vestigial arm to two weapon fight with a two-handed weapon.
The player is not asking for any extra attacks. The player wants to make two attacks via the TWF feat.
One attack is with a Greatsword held in the main-hand and the Vestigal Arm. It gets 1.5x STR bonus.
The other attack is probably a light weapon in the off-hand. It gets 0.5x STR bonus.
There is no hiccup. There is no Step 2.
Can you use a greatsword and light weapon with only two hand = no, you cannot. Therefore you cannot do it with three hands via vestigial hand either.
Can you use a greatsword and light weapon with only two hand = no, you cannot. Therefore you cannot do it with three hands via vestigial hand either.
Can you use a dagger and two claw attacks with only 2 hands = no, you cannot. Yet this is explicitly stated as something you can do with a vestigial hand.
Can you use a greatsword and light weapon with only two hand = no, you cannot. Therefore you cannot do it with three hands via vestigial hand either.The player is not asking for any extra attacks. The player wants to make two attacks via the TWF feat.
One attack is with a Greatsword held in the main-hand and the Vestigal Arm. It gets 1.5x STR bonus.
The other attack is probably a light weapon in the off-hand. It gets 0.5x STR bonus.
There is no hiccup. There is no Step 2.
Yes. Greatsword + Armor Spikes.
Yes. Greatsword + Armor Spikes.Can you use a greatsword and light weapon with only two hand = no, you cannot. Therefore you cannot do it with three hands via vestigial hand either.The player is not asking for any extra attacks. The player wants to make two attacks via the TWF feat.
One attack is with a Greatsword held in the main-hand and the Vestigal Arm. It gets 1.5x STR bonus.
The other attack is probably a light weapon in the off-hand. It gets 0.5x STR bonus.
There is no hiccup. There is no Step 2.
If we're talking about someone with only two arms, that's forbidden under the game rules.
I think there's even an FAQ, that's already been linked in this thread.
Edit: Looks like it wasn't linked in this thread, but was linked in link posted.
what you miss is that the extra hand didn't give you extra attacks it only give you extra wielding power.
before having an extra hand you COULD do 2 attacks with a WEAPON in each hand. after you still can, the extra hand only let you grab a bigger weapon then before it's not an additional weapon it's just a different type. nothing wrong with it as the hand is supposed to help you wield more.
saying that you can't do this since you gain an attack that you couldn't do before (attack with greatsword and dagger for example) it's like saying you can't do 2 weapon fighting with 2 dagger and hold a shield since without the extra hand you could only attack with one weapon if you held a shield (shield bash non withstanding). and that is clearly allowed.
I know people really hate the hands of effort argument, but vestigial armor doesn't grant any additional hands of effort.
Since you couldn't TWF with a two-handed weapon before the vestigial arm, it's reasonable to say you can't afterwards. Of course different people interpret the rules differently, and I think we all know what camps we're in and aren't going to suddenly change. This forum has been having this argument for years.
You could also attack with an armor spike while holding a shield and long sword. You could not do the same if you were holding a greatsword. Therefore, saying that being able to attack with a greatsword and dagger isn't giving you more attacks is patently false. Vestigial arms simply does not allow you to twf while wielding a weapon in two-hands.
This is where the logic starts to break down and things begin to contradict themselves.
A creature who chooses to dual wield is allowed to make its normal compliment of armed attacks with a designated "main-hand" and a single additional attack with a designated "off-hand". So, both players and designers assumed that this allowed a creature to make an attack with a 2-handed weapon and an offhand attack with a weapon like armor spikes (see also, bladed boot, boulder helmet, seaknife and Barbazu Beard) because it could be used without hands. As this was the case in 3.5.
Then we got this FAQ which only seems to state that a free off-hand is required to use armor spikes with no explanation of what is meant by a free off hand. If we take this to mean that it requires a literal free hand to attack with armor spikes then a normal human wielding a sword and shield can not make off-hand attacks with armor spikes any more than another human wielding a greatsword can. The fact that gauntlets are also called out suggests that it's talking about physical hands and that its assumed that armor spike attacks are made by swinging your arm/fist at enemies.
It's only when the FAQ is taken to mean metaphorical hands instead of actual hands (something not talked about anywhere in the rules btw) that you end up with this weird exception where certain weapon combinations aren't allowed and other combinations are, though it doesn't make any sense to differentiate the two, even when both options are equally physically possible. I mean, you're not getting an AC bonus from just carrying a shield around like its a snow globe. You're getting an AC bonus because you're actually wielding the shield, using it to intercept attacks made against you.
What is improved by NOT allowing it? Can anyone answer me this?
I can think of plenty of things that are improved by allowing it. For one, letting players play what they want in a fantasy game is at the top of the list. Chipping away at the massive gap between martials and casters, is another.
But sure, tell the player that they can't do it in a fantasy game because reasons... "hands' worth of effort" or "balance" or something. Seriously consider if THIS is something that you have to draw the line against in a fantasy game.
THIS is too much? Lol. If you feel that you MUST ban SOMETHING, ban metamagic. Ban caster levels that are greater than your hit dice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't subscribe to the argument that because casters are broken you should allow martials to do broken things.
I prefer to reign in casters for a more balanced game.
Personally I have house rules that constrain caster when I run PF1 games, but also I'm not going to allow vestigial arms to allow for attack routines you couldn't make without it.
I in no way find a person with three arms swinging a Greatsword and a Dagger to be a broken thing. There are broken things, and TWF with a Greatsword and Armor Spikes or whatever, is not it.
But, diversity is humanity's biggest strength... we don't have to agree, and that's a beautiful thing.
but also I'm not going to allow vestigial arms to allow for attack routines you couldn't make without it.
Which IMO is a sensible way to do things. I think the discovery should be handled in a way that is consistent instead of making exceptions to allow certain things and disallow others. If you can't normally attack with a dagger and 2 claws without the discovery then you can't do it with the discovery either.
I in no way find a person with three arms swinging a Greatsword and a Dagger to be a broken thing. There are broken things, and TWF with a Greatsword and Armor Spikes or whatever, is not it.
But, diversity is humanity's biggest strength... we don't have to agree, and that's a beautiful thing.
The specific example of two-weapon fighting with a greatsword and a dagger isn't going to break anything, sure.
But what if the take vestigial arm twice? Can they now wield two greatsword? What's their strength bonus on those attacks?
What if they're a sneak attacking natural attack build? Are you letting them get 7+ natural attacks a round with sneak attack?
I agree damage is the easiest thing for me to deal with as a GM, but I also don't want things to get excessive.
There are plenty of not-grey area martial things that will let them deal lots of damage.
But as you said, we don't have to agree. As long as we can do so in an agreeable and peaceful manner.
I think straightforward things like TWF with two Greatswords (2x Vestigal Arm, Kasatha, whatever) is a nonissue in terms of balance. And, as mentioned, damage is pretty easy to deal with. And it doesn't take any longer than any other TWF build, which is important.
The builds that abuse AoO triggers are way worse than two Greatswords being swung by the same person.Great Trip, Vicious Stomp, Shield Slam, and the millions of teamwork AoO builds are all perfectly legal, too. Even encouraged by some. At least TWF with Greatswords doesn't create a feedback loop of munchkin madness.
As for the Strength Bonus for an off-hand Greatsword, still being held by two off-hands...? Three-quarters. Lol. No, probably just half, because off-hand, and nothing changes it exclusively. Pretty easy, really... now everyone can't b!tch about the Strength Bonus maximum "hands' worth of effort" horse$#!+...
I think straightforward things like TWF with two Greatswords (2x Vestigal Arm, Kasatha, whatever)
For what it's worth as a GM I don't allow Kasatha in Pathfinder either (Starfinder is okay, but that's because everyone only gets two attacks @ level 1 and it stays that way with the exception of class specific abilities that grant more or reduce the multi-attack penalty).
I think straightforward things like TWF with two Greatswords (2x Vestigal Arm, Kasatha, whatever)For what it's worth as a GM I don't allow Kasatha in Pathfinder either (Starfinder is okay, but that's because everyone only gets two attacks @ level 1 and it stays that way with the exception of class specific abilities that grant more or reduce the multi-attack penalty).
It's good to be consistent.
I like the weird stuff in my campaigns. I like characters that are capable of different things... the Strix can fly at level one, the Kasatha dual wielding Greatswords, the Noble Drow can levitate and has constant Detect Magic vision... cool.
I find it very important for a fantasy game to include fantastic things, like people who can fly, or four-armed people, green-skinned people, hairy people, big people, little people, half-horse people... it is vital to detach the fantasy world from the mundane crap we see every day in real life.
I agree it's awesome to have all that stuff in the game world, I just don't think it all needs to be available to players.