| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So... this is more a GM question than a player question, but how are creatures with multiple arms handled when it comes to two-handed weapons. The Xill comes to mind, immediately. What if you swap their shortswords for 2 greatswords, or similar? What if they power attack? I generally don't allow Kasatha as a playable race, but what about them?
Any thoughts?
There's apparently a Kasatha somewhere in the Iron Gods path that dual wields chainsaws. I think that's the only official example.
Easy... -4/-4 because it's not a light off-hand weapon, they each get 1x STR bonus so people don't start b!tching about "hands' worth of effort" in terms of bonus damage, that's it. There you go.
Either allow it, or don't, it doesn't really affect much. It looks and sounds cool, but it's not going to break the game or even change the power level of someone in an AP. Literally a nonissue.
I take the easy way, and just don't allow races with more than 2 arms.
Easy... -4/-4 because it's not a light off-hand weapon, they each get 1x STR bonus so people don't start b!tching about "hands' worth of effort" in terms of bonus damage, that's it. There you go.
I'd make it that one gets 1.5× damage and the other gets 1× damage, but if they have Double Slice the "offhand" weapon goes back up to 1.5× as well.
I take the easy way, and just don't allow races with more than 2 arms.
What if they use a SPELL to become a CREATURE WITH 4 ARMS?
(Don't need any sci-fi stuff for this to be a thing)
Easy... -4/-4 because it's not a light off-hand weapon, they each get 1x STR bonus so people don't start b!tching about "hands' worth of effort" in terms of bonus damage, that's it. There you go.I'd make it that one gets 1.5× damage and the other gets 1× damage, but if they have Double Slice the "offhand" weapon goes back up to 1.5× as well.
I, personally, like this way of looking at it... but there are those out there that p!ss and moan about "hands' worth of effort"... which is apparently rooted in some argument about too much STR bonus damage. Like 1.5x is the maximum "hands' worth of effort" allowed, or some such BS.
It's supposedly why you can't TWF with a greatsword and armor spikes... 1.5x from the greatsword + 0.5x from the off-hand armor spikes is TOO much. The game is ruined!
Yeah I know the rule.
I think technically you can't TWF with greatswords, but you could hold 1 Greatsword and 2 Longswords (or probably Short swords would be better). Both the smaller swords would be "offhand" weapons, but I think the "main" weapon gets 1.5×.
I do think TWF with a Greatsword and Armour spikes is a bit cheesy, but I doubt it would really break the DPR threads.
|
As Xill can dual wield two longbows (as stated in their stats), I would just let them TWF with two greatswords (with the usual penalty of -4 for non-light weapons).
If that rubs your players the wrong way because of the "hands-argument", let them know that monsters break the rules often enough by having strange abilities (like raging undead and random deflection bonusses). Or just add the multiweapon mastery ability which shows up regulary, like with the Marilith and the Upasanda (with the later using a twohander and 2 other weapons at the same time).
I take the easy way, and just don't allow races with more than 2 arms.What if they use a SPELL to become a CREATURE WITH 4 ARMS?
(Don't need any sci-fi stuff for this to be a thing)
If my players try to go down this route I will then be forced to explain that I don't agree with the written examples giving 4 armed characters more than 1 primary hand and rule that they have 1 primary hand and all others are off-hand. Two-handed weapons require a primary hand to use.
So they could wield 2 one handed weapons in off-hands, and wield a two-handed weapon in one pair of arms. As for how two weapon fighting, ITWF, and GTWF will work...not in their favor.
Basically as a GM I just ask my players not to go down this road because it's not balanced and is just a headache.
Is it a base damage thing?
Is it a STR bonus damage thing?
What is it that makes people feel that TWF with two-handed weapons is so grossly overpowered?
There is one playable race with four arms. This one particular race does NOT have racial proficiency in any finessable two-handed weapons. No finessable two-handed weapons means your class selection is limited to those with access to Ranger Combat Style feats. Or you burn a feat for EWP in some Elven weapon, and still have to get all the DEX to hit amd damage feats, and all the TWF feats.
One race. Like 3 class options. I bet this happens so often it ruins every encounter in every game.
There's probably whole parties of four-armed aliens, all martials dual-wielding greatswords... and if you can't figure out how to counter that, well, that's on you, not them. It's literally only as big of deal as you make it.
Chances are someone dual-wielding greatswords is going to rely LESS on shenanigans, and will probably be just about the most straight-forward build on the board...
VoodistMonk, I would guess that the issue is something like...if you can fight with a greatsword and armor spikes or shape-shift into something that can pick up two great swords, then why would a player with a two-handed fighting character take other options? It seems like a pretty reliable way of increasing your damage output with few downsides.
It's like that old bit of advice about making new rules/races/classes/feats/spells/items: if it's so good that everyone who can take it does take it, it's probably overshadowing other options.
I don't think the concept is broken or that it's anything to worry about compared to full casters or anything, but I would feel bad for the humble great sword fighter who didn't buy spiky armor if he was consistently outdone by the character that did.
Spikes can always be added to armor later, and TWF is just a feat away for whoever is feeling overshadowed. I bet there are still plenty of players that prefer the multitude of other options.
Seriously, it's a team effort, not a competition between party members. So what if someone does more damage than you? Do something else. Every Rogue in every game, ever, probably feels overshadowed by literally everyone else... we don't level the playing field so everyone sucks as bad as the Rogue. Do we? I don't.
I want better options to come around every once in a while. With any luck, the bar gets RAISED a little each time. Eventually, everything gets better... or that's the hope. If you keep removing stuff, pretty soon there's nothing left.
It's a fantasy game... and dual-wielding greatswords seems like the EXACT sort of thing one may encounter in such a setting. Sorry if it's not a Shikigami sledgehammer shenanigan build, or something that abuses nonsensical amounts of AoO's, or a natural attack build that allows a bite and gore attack from the same singular head... nope, just TWF with stupid big penalties and stupid big swords.
Let that one guy have their fun, play the fantasy character they fantasize about. Stop saying "you can't" in a freaking fantasy game just because someome else didn't. If someone wants to play a powerful character and everyone else plays suboptimal characters... it is NOT banhammer time. It's just not.
It's just one race. A 20RP race, at that. If you are allowing 20RP races in your campaign, then dual-wielding greatswords is the LEAST of your worries...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly don't think it's that big a deal. If you allow 4 armed races then let them use 4 arms, otherwise what's the point?
I also don't care strongly enough about this that I'd insist on it, so if you don't like it and want to ban it then go nuts. It's such a niche thing that people really shouldn't feel hardly done by.
The one from Iron Gods with relevant info.
kasatha fighter 15 (Pathfinder RPG Bestiary 4 174)
Melee +1 shock chainsaw +16/+11/+6 (3d6+5/18–20 plus 1d6 electricity), +1 chainsaw +16/+11 (3d6+4/18–20)
Str 12
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)
To bad the strength wasn’t 14+
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
how are creatures with multiple arms handled when it comes to two-handed weapons. The Xill comes to mind, immediately. What if you swap their shortswords for 2 greatswords, or similar? What if they power attack?
I'd keep it simple:
Main-hand gets 100% Str bonus and 100% Power Attack bonus.
Any off-hand gets 50% and 50%.
So, if you exchange two shortswords for a greatsword in two off-hands, actually not much changes:
2 * (1d6 + Str/2 + PA/2) for shortswords turns into
2d6 + Str + PA for greatsword
Meaning the damage on hit is identical, as long as no damage reduction is involved. Off-hand shortswords get a lower AB penalty, though.
how are creatures with multiple arms handled when it comes to two-handed weapons. The Xill comes to mind, immediately. What if you swap their shortswords for 2 greatswords, or similar? What if they power attack?I'd keep it simple:
Main-hand gets 100% Str bonus and 100% Power Attack bonus.
Any off-hand gets 50% and 50%.So, if you exchange two shortswords for a greatsword in two off-hands, actually not much changes:
2 * (1d6 + Str/2 + PA/2) for shortswords turns into
2d6 + Str + PA for greatswordMeaning the damage on hit is identical, as long as no damage reduction is involved. Off-hand shortswords get a lower AB penalty, though.
Ultimately this is probably what I would do if a player insisted on playing a race with extra arms and two weapon fighting with multiple arms.
@Voodist Monk, it's honestly not about what I can or can't handle as a GM. You're right that martial characters are the easiest to counter. We had a player in our gaming group and the running joke for whoever was GMing the current campaign was that the enemies all got DR/Not Paul (the problem player's name is Paul). He'd always have some crazy build that broke several rules, and after many times trying to convince him things didn't work that way everyone who GM'd for him just reduced the amount of damage the enemies took from his characters. It was the easiest way to deal with it in our minds without kicking him from the group (since we couldn't convince him of his rules errors).
Ultimately it's about intraparty balance. If one martial character is putting out double the damage of the others, the other players are going to feel bad about it. And that's where the problem is, IMO.
|
So... this is more a GM question than a player question, but how are creatures with multiple arms handled when it comes to two-handed weapons. The Xill comes to mind, immediately. What if you swap their shortswords for 2 greatswords, or similar? What if they power attack?
If you look at what the rules say and how they are applied in published examples then the total number of hands the creature has is irrelevant... the rule that melee weapons wielded in two hands get +1.5x Str bonus to damage applies regardless.
So with TWF (or MWF) both weapons would be at -4 to hit because they are non-light and +1.5x Str to damage because they are wielded two-handed. Likewise, you'd get the 50% higher power attack damage bonus to each weapon.
A logical case could certainly be made for only 'primary + off' hand wielded weapons getting +1.5x Str, while two off-hand wielded weapons would only get +1x Str... but no such rule is written anywhere, and there are examples to the contrary (e.g. Upasunda gets +1.5x Str bonus to damage with a spear wielded in two offhands).
Ultimately it's about intraparty balance. If one martial character is putting out double the damage of the others, the other players are going to feel bad about it. And that's where the problem is, IMO.
Exactly my point, yes.
Sure, you could always pick up the spikes and the feat to keep up, but then you're giving up what made your character unique and buying into someone else's "superior build", which kind of sucks.
Races with four arms...I dunno. If you are going to be a fighter-type, especially one with multiple weapons, what's the advantage to not taking that race, then? Or getting that spell cast on you?
Granted, I agree with Voodistmonk's philosophy of raising the bar instead of hammering down every outlier. I'm constantly tweaking and changing everything. TWF in my games requires one feat to get all attacks with both weapons, double slice and the full benefits of power attack. It also doesn't have a Dex requirement and penalties to attack rolls are all reduced by 2.
I'm just trying to explain why I think there's so much resistance to the idea of two greatswords, or whatever.
And hey, who's to say that it's *actually* better, anyway? I mean, sure. If you have TWF, more arms are always better than less. Straight increase. But armor spikes and a greatsword? Two greatswords versus four shortswords? I'm sure the math isn't so cut-and-dry, there. So all of this "don't make other builds obsolete" stuff may not even be a real concern in a lot of cases.
And hey, who's to say that it's *actually* better, anyway? I mean, sure. If you have TWF, more arms are always better than less. Straight increase. But armor spikes and a greatsword? Two greatswords versus four shortswords? I'm sure the math isn't so cut-and-dry, there. So all of this "don't make other builds obsolete" stuff may not even be a real concern in a lot of cases.
It's true, I've not done all the math and run all the numbers....but the honest truth to me as a GM is that the very small specific space of 4 armed characters and wielding multiple two-hand weapons is just something I'm okay with not really happening for player characters in my games. And if they're not okay with my response of "I'd really rather you didn't for the game I'm running"...well I'm not sure how I'd respond but I'd figure it out at that time.
The Kasatha build to beat would probably be a Ranger/Slayer dual-wielding Fauchards.
But are two Fauchards better than four Rapiers?
Maybe a Fighter with AWT and four Kukris getting Sacred Weapon damage?
What if it was one man with six guns?
Context: I've created a Xill Matriarch Red Mantis Assassin 10 (my poor players). I ended up on giving her 4 sawtooth sabers, but had considered her wielding 2 sabers two-handed. Technically, it's still possible.
I'd rule due to her fancy multiweapon nonsense she can treat all her sabers as 1-handed weapons, and deals normal STR and power attack damage. If she two-hands a saber, she gets 1.5x STR and PA.
But what if, hypothetically, she was a kasatha? I knew of the Kasatha from IG and short of a clearer ruling just go with that.
Also, I'd allow a Kasatha for a PC and theoretically let them attack with all 4 arms, but it would have to be the right campaign and all the other PCs would have to be at equivalent power level. But that's neither here nor there.
What the GM does with NPC characters is completely different from what you can let PC characters do. There are tons of monster with abilities that work differently than what PCs can get.
As a GM I never let PC rules interfere with what an NPC can do. NPCs don't need to be balanced, they just need to create an interesting foil to the PCs.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What if it was one man with six guns?
why don't you let us do the thinking, huh, genius?
There are definitely rules for creatures with multiple arms, but they aren't very fleshed out.
Just for reference:
MULTIWEAPON FIGHTING (TWF for 4-armed creatures)
BOW NOMAD (Kasatha archetype for dual wielding bows)
There are others but those are the ones that I'm familiar with. The Bow Nomad does seem to imply that fighting with two 2-handed weapons isn't normally allowed (or at least 2 bows) and Multiweapon Fighting talks about having 1 main hand and 3 off-hands when doing something like this.
I'm firmly on the side that thinks 2 greatswords would be fine, but Paizo seems to disagree with me.