In the campaign I am playing my character recently died... I'm thinking of making a 4 armed fighter is it viable?
Here are my plans ...
Human alchemist taking extra discovery two times to grow 2 arms
Fighter the rest of the way...
I don't really see a downside being alchemist I can create mutagens and use extracts
Unfortunately the DM will not allow Kasatha...
EDIT: this is a 4th level PC I'm making
For roleplay wise, cool idea! For rules wise, not sure. I could see it works but you will have to take two weapons fighting because you are still having two weapons in your fighting spaces, it's hard not to keep them out of each others' way. Trust me, I train in dual-wielding so awhile now, sometimes it's just much easier using one sword instead. But yea, great idea!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Technically, it appears to be allowable. Unfortunately, you're taking at least three levels of alchemist and two feats to do this. Assuming Alchemist 3/Fighter 1, your BAB is +3 and the two-weapon penalty is -4 on every attack. Even if you have an 20 strength and weapon focus, you'd be swinging at half your normal to-hit bonus.
While thematically interesting, it is numerically pretty crappy.
Well he could go fighter/2 and alchemist/2 instead, since he only need 2 levels of alchemist and a feat for the two extra arms. He could go vivisectionist and pick up a dice of sneak attack too while he's at it.
Nevermind the mutagen. :)
Technically, it appears to be allowable. Unfortunately, you're taking at least three levels of alchemist and two feats to do this. Assuming Alchemist 3/Fighter 1, your BAB is +3 and the two-weapon penalty is -4 on every attack. Even if you have an 20 strength and weapon focus, you'd be swinging at half your normal to-hit bonus.
While thematically interesting, it is numerically pretty crappy.
If I use my human bonus feat and my normal level 1 feat can't I grow two arms and take three levels of fighter ?
Well he could go fighter/2 and alchemist/2 instead, since he only need 2 levels of alchemist and a feat for the two extra arms. He could go vivisectionist and pick up a dice of sneak attack too while he's at it.
Nevermind the mutagen. :)
I like how you think ;)
I just realised something. You could take extra discovery again later down the line in order to get a tentacle. This opens you up for using a shield as well or you could even substitute the tentacle for a hand and keep a hand free for climbing, pulling a lever or even be a complete bastard and invest in crane style. ;)
Technically, it appears to be allowable. Unfortunately, you're taking at least three levels of alchemist and two feats to do this. Assuming Alchemist 3/Fighter 1, your BAB is +3 and the two-weapon penalty is -4 on every attack. Even if you have an 20 strength and weapon focus, you'd be swinging at half your normal to-hit bonus.
While thematically interesting, it is numerically pretty crappy.
Add also the fact that you need at least 15 Dex to take basic two-weapon fighting.
Add also the fact that you need at least 15 Dex to take basic two-weapon fighting.
my stats are pretty good my DM gave me a choice he wrote stats on paper put this in a bag and said pick or to roll my own I picked randomly and got 18 17 16 15 14 13 to place in any stat
Warning cheese alert
Whilst this is admittedly valid, it's not overly ridiculous, as cheese goes.
OT: It's entirely valid by RAW and with those stats, you can easily manage to live with the -4 penalty from TWF like this. Between the mutagen and 18STR (pre-racials), you'll be a bit of a machine, to put it lightly.
Actually, there's little that won't be valid under that distribution. Hell, you could be a monk and steal the show with that lot!
EDIt: Some further points - at alchemist 2, you won't need much intelligence, wisdom will be more of a must given you're on poor will saves all the way.
Heh. Major Cheese lol.
Maybe instead of fighter, go Barbarian with Titan Mauler archtype and wield 4 greatswords?
As written, one cannot, under any circumstance, gain extra attacks from vestigial arms than what they could have without it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yep no extra attacks but you can add a shield and a 2 handed weapon...nice armor buff.
You also keep an arm free for thrown stuff if you need to.
I'm playing a similar build fighter 1 / Alchemist 4 at the moment and it's a very good front line fight.
2 handed reach weapon, shield and combat reflexes.
Also take grenadier path and apply various alchemical weapon buffs to your melee attacks.
I made a tiefling...which is no ordinary tiefling...bite, wings and a mess of arms.
|
OP: Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but no, this is not possible. You could certainly be holding both weapons, but you would only be able to attack with one of them.
Think of this, if you didn't have the vestigial arms, you could either TWF with a 1H/Off (or 1H/1H) or you could THW. Having vestigial arms doesn't change this paradigm. Vestigial arms just grants you more options with which to fill those alotted attacks.
You should check the rules forum. This subject came up a couple of months ago and there are some major hurdles, especially when it comes to getting the 1.5 multiplier.
|
|
OP: Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but no, this is not possible. You could certainly be holding both weapons, but you would only be able to attack with one of them.
Think of this, if you didn't have the vestigial arms, you could either TWF with a 1H/Off (or 1H/1H) or you could THW. Having vestigial arms doesn't change this paradigm. Vestigial arms just grants you more options with which to fill those alotted attacks.
Correct. You cannot use TWF with two-handed weapons.
Paizo put out a FAQ regarding players not able to use TWF with two-handed weapons and armor spikes. When people whined and complained (and boy did they), Paizo explained that it was not their intention to allow two-handed weapons with TWF.
Also, using more than two arms when fighting is not Two-Weapon Fighting. It is Multiweapon Fighting, which is a rule for monsters.
If you want to do this build, it is not supported by RAW. It would need several house rules.
I'm going to make this simple: ask your DM before you even consider this. Here's why - there us absolutely no possible way to to two-weapon fight with 2 2hw's. Even a kasatha cannot do it within the rules without DM fiat. That said, alchemist vestigial arms cannot wield weapons, so your idea doesn't work. Try doing something else entirely or ask your DM if hell allow you to do it.
Thanks guys. I'm sure my DM will allow it....
Not from a rules standpoint that is but from a logic one
Imagine that the vestigial arm it's self is not holding the weapon but merely helping to support the weight .... Or I might just go for the tentacle and have it attack.... ( hey GM can we go to japan?) ;) lol
You could also look at synthesist summoner, and just go straight summoner. Bipedal eidolon with four arms.
The rules don't even support monsters wielding 2 two-handed weapons though, so your GM will have to make some up for you. And by "don't support" I mean "talk about in any way" not "say it is badwrongfun".
If I was going to do this, it would be to simultaneously have a reach weapon and a normal-range 2h masher ready to roll, so that if someone thought they were being clever by stepping inside the polearm's reach, I instead just force-feed them a full attack of greataxe. :)
Ghorrin
That said, alchemist vestigial arms cannot wield weapons, so your idea doesn't work.
You are mistaken there.
"The alchemist gains a new arm (left or right) on his torso. The arm is fully under his control and cannot be concealed except with magic or bulky clothing. The arm does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round, though the arm can wield a weapon and make attacks as part of the alchemist’s attack routine (using two-weapon fighting). The arm can manipulate or hold items as well as the alchemist’s original arms (for example, allowing the alchemist to use one hand to wield a weapon, another hand to hold a potion, and the third hand to throw a bomb). The arm has its own “hand” and “ring” magic item slots (though the alchemist can still only wear two rings and two hand magic items at a time)."
Seems it is trying to say "no you don't get extra attacks by default just for taking this, but you can use it to attack just like any of your other arms if you want."
That said, alchemist vestigial arms cannot wield weapons, so your idea doesn't work.
Nope:
The arm does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round, though the arm can wield a weapon and make attacks as part of the alchemist’s attack routine (using two-weapon fighting). The arm can manipulate or hold items as well as the alchemist’s original arms (for example, allowing the alchemist to use one hand to wield a weapon, another hand to hold a potion, and the third hand to throw a bomb). The arm has its own “hand” and “ring” magic item slots (though the alchemist can still only wear two rings and two hand magic items at a time).
Bold for refutation.
Now, the relevant bit to limiting the number of attacks is just before that bit.Paizo put out a FAQ regarding players not able to use TWF with two-handed weapons and armor spikes. When people whined and complained (and boy did they), Paizo explained that it was not their intention to allow two-handed weapons with TWF.
Also, using more than two arms when fighting is not Two-Weapon Fighting. It is Multiweapon Fighting, which is a rule for monsters.
Source on the FAQ? I am failing to find it, besides which, the intent does not change the rules-as-written. It merely makes this build fall under the purview of cheese.
Further, multi-weapon fighting has no explicit replacement, except as a feat, for two-weapon fighting. Nothing on monster feats actually says players cannot attain them. Indeed, it is called out some players may qualify for them.That said, it's redundant if the FAQ says you cannot use TWF with two-handed weapons.
EDIT: Think I found the FAQ?
Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?
No.
Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.
However, this situation relies on a premise of two hands. Which makes it seem irrelevant.
Think of this, if you didn't have the vestigial arms, you could either TWF with a 1H/Off (or 1H/1H) or you could THW. Having vestigial arms doesn't change this paradigm. Vestigial arms just grants you more options with which to fill those alotted attacks.
See, I disagree with this premise, precisely since the number of possible attacks has not increased from that for having only two arms. If we consider that someone may have N attacks from two arms whilst using one-handed weapons, and obtains two extra arms that subsequently are used to replace one-handed weapons with two-handed weapons, how is this maximum number of attacks exceeding N? It is not and therefore is not granting extra attacks which is all that is banned.
RAW, it's a no go (discussed several times in several threads) but if you have DM permission then who cares. I say go with large bastard swords and multiclass the hell out of it. Alchemist gets you the extra arms, Titan Mauler Barbarian will get rid of oversized weapon penalties, and Two Weapon Fighter to lower your penalties for not using light weapons. Once you've gotten rid of the (many) penalties then go back to alchemist for more extracts.
@Physically Unfeasible: the reason its not possible to TWF with two 2hw's is because even though your vestigial arms can wield weapons, you still only count as having 2 hands for this purpose. regardless of which of your arms are wielding a 2hw, you only have 2 for the purpose of doing so. therefore the other two, again it doesnt mater which two they are, cannot also be wielding a weapon(s). they can be holding them, but not wielding them.
so to break it down: if you have a greatsword wielded in both of your left arms, you cannot wield another one in both of your right arms. if you are wielding it in your upper two arms, you cannot wield another in your lower two. see where i am going with this? you only count has having two arms for the purpose of wielding weapons, therefore even though you have two more arms that CAN wield them, you have to pick two and only two with which to attack. a 2hw requires 2 wield-capable arms to attack with.
when you get into the realm of creatures that can take Multi-Weapon Fighting naturally, such as the Kasatha, it gets much more fuzzy because the design team has yet to make a ruling on this matter. as per all rules mentioned above, its legal because they have all mechanical nessesities to be able to do it, but the Devs have been quoted to say that it was never intended to work, so we are at an impasse.
even with vestigial arms and wielding 4 light weapons you can still only make attacks as if you had 2 arms. if you were wielding 2 light weapons and a 2hw, you could, when making a full-attack action, choose to do so with either the 2hw or the two light weapons, but not switch between them. with the 4 light weapons, each time you make an attack in your full-attack action, you could designate 1 of them primary, then swap between the other three at will as your secondary, but never exceed the number of attacks twf would allow you normally.
with the 4 light weapons, each time you make an attack in your full-attack action, you could designate 1 of them primary, then swap between the other three at will as your secondary, but never exceed the number of attacks twf would allow you normally.
See, as far as I read it, that inherently contradicts the idea one cannot use two 2HWs.
If one can attack with all 4 weapons, provided they cannot exceed the attacks that can be made with two arms, they are using them to wield weapons on a way that is not possible with two hands but does not exceed the number of attacks for two hands.In the same skin, using two 2HWs is not possible via two hands but does not exceed the amount of attacks one can make with only 2 hands. However, at no point is it given you can only do that which is possible via two hands (indeed, that'd make it rather redundant).
I suppose a better way to put my contention is that the RAW only says that extra attacks are not permitted. I do not see how a more powerful attack is equivalent to an extra attack.
http://paizo.com/products/btpy8k8r/faq?Pathfinder-Roleplaying-Game-Ultimate -Magic#v5748eaic9rc5
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.
In the campaign I am playing my character recently died... I'm thinking of making a 4 armed fighter is it viable?
Here are my plans ...
Human alchemist taking extra discovery two times to grow 2 arms
Fighter the rest of the way...I don't really see a downside being alchemist I can create mutagens and use extracts
Unfortunately the DM will not allow Kasatha...
EDIT: this is a 4th level PC I'm making
Consider going Ranger instead of Fighter to get TWF for free without the Dex pre-req.
Having said that, if you think about it, there's no way this would work in the practical sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the campaign I am playing my character recently died... I'm thinking of making a 4 armed fighter is it viable?
Here are my plans ...
Human alchemist taking extra discovery two times to grow 2 arms
Fighter the rest of the way...I don't really see a downside being alchemist I can create mutagens and use extracts
Unfortunately the DM will not allow Kasatha...
EDIT: this is a 4th level PC I'm makingConsider going Ranger instead of Fighter to get TWF for free without the Dex pre-req.
Having said that, if you think about it, there's no way this would work in the practical sense.
Fireballs n' stuff. Nuff said.
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."
.so to break it down: if you have a greatsword wielded in both of your left arms, you cannot wield another one in both of your right arms. if you are wielding it in your upper two arms, you cannot wield another in your lower two. see where i am going with this? you only count has having two arms for the purpose of wielding weapons, therefore even though you have two more arms that CAN wield them, you have to pick two and only two with which to attack. a 2hw requires 2 wield-capable arms to attack with.
...
even with vestigial arms and wielding 4 light weapons you can still only make attacks as if you had 2 arms. if you were wielding 2 light weapons and a 2hw, you could, when making a full-attack action, choose to do so with either the 2hw or the two light weapons, but not switch between them. with the 4 light weapons, each time you make an attack in your full-attack action, you could designate 1 of them primary, then swap between the other three at will as your secondary, but never exceed the number of attacks twf would allow you normally.
I wish to come back on this (and missed the editing time). But if one can make no actions beyond that available to a character with 2 arms when they have vestigial arms, then don't vestigial arms do nothing? If one cannot use more than two for the purpose of combat during a round at all, I fail to see the gain of the discovery. Except perhaps in some ill defined concept of options. At which point, I can only see actions consumed by players still having to retrieve items (unless one walks around with their weapons out permanently, which seems odd at best) and nothing gained. You might have 4 one-handed weapons equipped but a fight so variable that that is needed is so highly situational, it sounds like a farce (and expensive).
Nigh on everything they use is called out as a standard action (ignoring discoveries) to retrieve and use. With no implication of any such intermediate action (nor would one want to take one excluding aforementioned perma-armed stance). More yet, if one is limited by a concept of hands in the action limit, then one cannot use TWF and drink a potion because that would exceed two hands. Even if the simple act of drinking were (by some means) a free action. Or perhaps, one would have to point out that drawing 4 weapons, even with quick draw, by this idea - would be outside the boundaries.Heck, the more I think on it, the more ridiculously redundant it seems and the more I am left to conclude the lack of extra actions is called out by the idea of N attacks above, and to prevent increasing on 1 standard, 1 move, 1 swift, action/round. Nothing more. Thus, cheese as it is, the greatsword wielding maniac seems valid.
Since the OP has permission from the DM, what difference does it make?
Another option would be to go Dex based (like most TWF builds) and use Elven curve blades. Two levels of ranger can get you Power Attack without the Str score. Two power attacking agile curve blades could put out some damage.
OK, I'll explain simpler: with a bab of +1, you can either make 1 attack with a 2hw or 2 attacks with 2 light weapons, right? So if you have 4 arms, this doesn't change. What DOES change, is the choice of what you are holding being swung.
So if you have 2 2hws being held in 4 arms, you can either make 1 attack with one, or 1attack with the other, but not both in the same round. If you have 4 light weapons, you can choose which 2 of the 4 you make your 2 attacks with, but cannot swing all 4 in the same round.
Make better sense?
Nowhere does it say it needs to be a light weapon.
I just using light to keep it simple.
Wrong is not simple.
No by definition you could dual wield 2h weapons but by RAW (faq'd) you can not add 1.5 str to those weapons - although you could get the damage die.
What you *can* do with 4 arms is wield 4 weapons - and when you have a high enough attack bonus to make 4 attacks - attack with each weapon - getting the enchantments from each.
As the recent clarifications regarding weapons (you must make an attack to get the benefits) this would be a legal way to stack such things.
No by definition you could dual wield 2h weapons but by RAW (faq'd) you can not add 1.5 str to those weapons - although you could get the damage die.
What you *can* do with 4 arms is wield 4 weapons - and when you have a high enough attack bonus to make 4 attacks - attack with each weapon - getting the enchantments from each.
As the recent clarifications regarding weapons (you must make an attack to get the benefits) this would be a legal way to stack such things.
Link?
I'm sure my DM will allow it....
There. Enough said. Now does anybody have any ADVICE for this ADVICE thread?
No by definition you could dual wield 2h weapons but by RAW (faq'd) you can not add 1.5 str to those weapons - although you could get the damage die.
What you *can* do with 4 arms is wield 4 weapons - and when you have a high enough attack bonus to make 4 attacks - attack with each weapon - getting the enchantments from each.
As the recent clarifications regarding weapons (you must make an attack to get the benefits) this would be a legal way to stack such things.
Wrong. In order to attack with all 4 weapons, you would need 3 off hand attacks, not just 4 attacks. A bab of 16+ gives you 4 attacks, but only one of the weapons you are holding is a primary weapon and can be used with those 4 attacks. You would need improved and greater twf to make use of all 4 weapons.
Either way....the DM already said yes to this guy apparently, so the only advice anyone can really give is: make it up. There's no rules support, so anything you do is gonna be completely based on how YOU think it should work with what you are doing. Is it viable? Sure. Its twf with 2hw. Its exactly like twf with light and 1h weapons, except with bigger weapons...
|
Wrong. In order to attack with all 4 weapons, you would need 3 off hand attacks, not just 4 attacks. A bab of 16+ gives you 4 attacks, but only one of the weapons you are holding is a primary weapon and can be used with those 4 attacks. You would need improved and greater twf to make use of all 4 weapons.
Well, assuming your GM will allow it, here's what I would do:
I'd have two of your hands hold a greatsword or other typical heavy damage weapon, and in the other two hands I'd have a two-handed reach weapon like a long-spear.
That way, you get to smack them as they come in, and smack them when they're close. When they are close, drop the spear as a free action and pull out another big 2-handed weapon like a heavy mace as your move action, and swing both the sword and the mace. Or, if you have improved trip, you can then trip with the mace, get the opponent prone, then hit them with the sword with the +hit modifier for prone enemy.
Something like that.
I stand corrected....interesting that in all the debates about this topic that I've somehow never seen that FAQ...well then. I'll shut up about this...
I stand corrected....interesting that in all the debates about this topic that I've somehow never seen that FAQ...well then. I'll shut up about this...
Probably because everyone always wants the extra attack.
How about heavy shield, reach weapon, and longbow? Hold the reach weapon in one hand to attack with the bow at a distance, reach weapon for when they close, then shield bash. The Fighter's Fork from ultimate equipment would be a good choice. Changes from a one handed trident to reach weapon or light weapon and back again. Be ready for everything!
I'm not seeing how the armored spike FAQ effects the build at all.
It assumes you only have two arms. It makes sense that you can't make an extra attack with the armor spikes on your arm while you're using that arm to swing a greatsword.
If you have four arms, the same limitations don't really apply.