4-armed Thunder and Fang+Klar+Mutagen, Legal or No?

[EvilPaladin]

Hello all!

With all the confusion on alchemists, I wanted to make sure this was legal before I filed it in my "ideas" file for PFS. Would an Alchemist/Fighter who uses a Large Earthbreaker in 2 hands for offense, a Klar in 1 hand for defense, and a bomb in the third for extract buffing be legal? I'm thinking yes because Large Earthbreaker needs large or larger normally, but with T&F, Earthbreaker becomes a 1h weapon, so it should be wieldable in 2h while large. Then you stack on a Vestigial Arm for a Klar[because why not?] and a Vestigial Arm to chuck bombs. But, there are weird rules as to how Vestigial Arm works [like it won't let you multiweapon fight or TWF with 1 or 2 large weapons, or let you wield large 2h weapons as 3h weapons, or anything like that], so I wanted to check if it would be legal.

Also, would I get the 1.5xStr and 3:1 PA ratio on damage with the Earthbreaker[I can't see why not, but am wondering if as GM's this would be allowed in your game, as it would be a nice representation of PFS table variation before I calculate the damage for this.]

[Shfish]

Basic answer: if you are having this much grey on a character concept...trash it.

[Nefreet]

There was recently a very long thread (I gave up on reading the back and forth) debating whether or not T&F allowed you to wield a large EB.

Given the division, I would not recommend going that route in PFS.

But otherwise, yes, you can wield a 2H weapon in two hands, a shield in your third, and throw bombs with your fourth.

[James Risner]

Nefreet wrote:

I would not recommend going that route in PFS.

But otherwise, yes, you can wield a 2H weapon in two hands, a shield in your third, and throw bombs with your fourth.

I also wouldn't allow this build in a PFS game by RAW.

[Cascade]

James Risner wrote:

Nefreet wrote:

I would not recommend going that route in PFS.

But otherwise, yes, you can wield a 2H weapon in two hands, a shield in your third, and throw bombs with your fourth.

I also wouldn't allow this build in a PFS game by RAW.

Hope I never play at your table...

As far as the OP, the large size 2 handed is still aggressively debated however a normal sized 2 handed is perfectly legal as Nefreet pointed out.

[Shfish]

Cascade wrote:

James Risner wrote:

Nefreet wrote:

I would not recommend going that route in PFS.

But otherwise, yes, you can wield a 2H weapon in two hands, a shield in your third, and throw bombs with your fourth.

I also wouldn't allow this build in a PFS game by RAW.

Hope I never play at your table...

As far as the OP, the large size 2 handed is still aggressively debated however a normal sized 2 handed is perfectly legal as Nefreet pointed out.

No Cascade, James is fine in this. As per RAW debates it's hotly contended and does require a GM's call. At that point he is fine to make the call about it; of course as long as he is willing to allow the normal size as a middle ground.

Saying you hope to never play at a table because a GM runs it correctly is the wrong answer man. Just like you see various players, you see various GMs. When you make a character that is so deep in the grey zone its not funny means you have to be willing to 100% roll with GM calls as each will have different takes on your grey character. If a GM lets you know up front and you choose not to play at his table means that you as the player are too inflexible to be a reasonable PFS player. I've played with your type locally...when they find out a GM doesn't agree on their grey interpretations they make a huff and throw the problem on the GM...not the players choice of character concept that they KNEW was grey! So, if you can't roll, don't make a grey character. If you can, then enjoy it in all the interpretations! (And yes I have such a grey character that is played way differently at different tables for this reason, but we all have fun regardless!)

[Nefreet]

Except that SKR has specifically said that a four-armed Alchemist may wield a two-handed weapon, wear a shield, and throw a bomb.

I don't see how saying otherwise is "running it correctly".

Please don't confuse this issue with attacking with 2 two-handed weapons. That is specifically not allowed.

EDIT: added another link

[Shfish]

Nefreet wrote:

Except that SKR has specifically said that a four-armed Alchemist may wield a two-handed weapon, wear a shield, and throw a bomb.

I don't see how saying otherwise is "running it correctly".

Please don't confuse this issue with attacking with 2 two-handed weapons. That is specifically not allowed.

The issue isn't two handed so much as a large two handed (at least as far as I was reading).

Which now that I think about it, is a moot point for PFS anyway. In PFS you buy gear appropriate to your size, correct?

[Nefreet]

You can buy small-, medium-, and large-sized gear in PFS. But nothing larger or smaller.

[James Risner]

Nefreet wrote:

I don't see how saying otherwise is "running it correctly".

The OP was doing Tunder and Fang for a Large one, which I don't agree is the correct RAW. I understand some say it is within RAW, I just don't agree with their interpretation.

[Nefreet]

This is what happens when you only quote part of my comment.

I was not saying that wielding a large Earth Breaker via Thunder and Fang was legal, I was saying "otherwise, yes, you can wield a 2H weapon in two hands, a shield in your third, and throw bombs with your fourth".

[Shfish]

James Risner wrote:

Nefreet wrote:

I don't see how saying otherwise is "running it correctly".

The OP was doing Tunder and Fang for a Large one, which I don't agree is the correct RAW. I understand some say it is within RAW, I just don't agree with their interpretation.

Actually according to RAW you cant use a large 2 handed weapon period anyway. "If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration[from going up a size], the creature can't wield the weapon at all."

Using a large earthbreaker goes from 2handed to beyond. According to this you can't wield it at all. This has even been confirmed for the Titan Mauler that still has to follow this ruling. And before someone says "but the feat says..." Right...but ALL feats are assuming you are using gear appropriate to your size UNLESS they state otherwise, as has been said numerous times by some of the devs at various points. Thunder & Fang only lets your wield it one handed, it doesn't remove the size restrictions.

[Shfish]

Nefreet wrote:

You can buy small-, medium-, and large-sized gear in PFS. But nothing larger or smaller.

I stand corrected on this point..I think maybe my brain was on an earlier version of the guide?..but I looked it up and am eating crow (no pun intended)

[Nefreet]

<= Anthropomorphic Crow

[EvilPaladin]

Thanks for the input guys! I think I'll drop the Thunder and Fang feat line and the Large Earthbreaker and just go Bomb arm+Klar+Earthbreaker-in-two-hands. The 2h thing seems a bit too expensive anyway[for concept I plan on getting Adamantine weaponry].

[Shfish]

If your dropping that, why keep the Klar?

[Nefreet]

Because Klars are AWESOME?!?

[Cascade]

Shfish wrote:

No Cascade, James is fine in this. As per RAW debates it's hotly contended and does require a GM's call. At that point he is fine to make the call about it; of course as long as he is willing to allow the normal size as a middle ground.

Saying you hope to never play at a table because a GM runs it correctly is the wrong answer man. Just like you see various players, you see various GMs. When you make a character that is so deep in the grey zone its not funny means you have to be willing to 100% roll with GM calls as each will have different takes on your grey character. If a GM lets you know up front and you choose not to play at his table means that you as the player are too inflexible to be a reasonable PFS player. I've played with your type locally...when they find out a GM doesn't agree on their grey interpretations they make a huff and throw the problem on the GM...not the players choice of character concept that they KNEW was grey! So, if you can't roll, don't make a grey character. If you can, then enjoy it in all the interpretations! (And yes I have such a grey character that is played way differently at different tables for this reason, but we all have fun regardless!)

First you don't know me.

Second, I make characters that I enjoy playing. I do my best to make sure they are within the rules...as above
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mer7?Alchemist-Vestigial-Arm-discovery-questio n#43

The inflexible stance goes both ways, if he is so inflexible to disallow legal rules, that's hardly reasonable.

I judge fairly often and see power builds and I seen things that push the line. As long as the table is having fun, I roll with it until I see firm proof against it. My job as a judge is to make sure players have a good time and I like the return.

Its a game and a hobby and if people play that serious, no I don't want to be at their table. And I've seen it first hand at Gencon where a judge was so pissed off that there was a rule in the core book he didn't know and didn't like, it ruined the rest of the round. Had I know he was like that, yes I would have left the table right off.

[Cascade]

Shfish wrote:

If your dropping that, why keep the Klar?

Actually wield 2 klars (of course just get one shield bonus) then you could have an earthbreaker as a one or two handed option, 1 klar as a shield that only stacks shield buffs and a second klar that is used as an off hand weapon for weak AC monsters. Lotta feats but a lotta options.

The downside to 4 alchemist levels is weaker to hit and weaker hp values. The strength buff is quite nice though. I wouldn't burn feats for discoveries though.

[Shfish]

Cascade wrote:

Shfish wrote:

No Cascade, James is fine in this. As per RAW debates it's hotly contended and does require a GM's call. At that point he is fine to make the call about it; of course as long as he is willing to allow the normal size as a middle ground.

Saying you hope to never play at a table because a GM runs it correctly is the wrong answer man. Just like you see various players, you see various GMs. When you make a character that is so deep in the grey zone its not funny means you have to be willing to 100% roll with GM calls as each will have different takes on your grey character. If a GM lets you know up front and you choose not to play at his table means that you as the player are too inflexible to be a reasonable PFS player. I've played with your type locally...when they find out a GM doesn't agree on their grey interpretations they make a huff and throw the problem on the GM...not the players choice of character concept that they KNEW was grey! So, if you can't roll, don't make a grey character. If you can, then enjoy it in all the interpretations! (And yes I have such a grey character that is played way differently at different tables for this reason, but we all have fun regardless!)

First you don't know me.

Second, I make characters that I enjoy playing. I do my best to make sure they are within the rules...as above
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mer7?Alchemist-Vestigial-Arm-discovery-questio n#43

The inflexible stance goes both ways, if he is so inflexible to disallow legal rules, that's hardly reasonable.

I judge fairly often and see power builds and I seen things that push the line. As long as the table is having fun, I roll with it until I see firm proof against it. My job as a judge is to make sure players have a good time and I like the return.

Its a game and a hobby and if people play that serious, no I don't want to be at their table. And I've seen it first hand at Gencon where a judge was so pissed off that there was a rule in the core book he didn't know and...

Thats the thing...its not a legal rule. The only way it works is for you to discount other rules that apply ...and that is not playing by RAW. So what I said to you is still valid. I didn't say a GM should try to disallow legal choices just because they don't like it...far from it, as I said you would have to allow the normal sized wielded two handed as that one is fine within the rules.

Although as per RAW there isn't a way to TWF with a weapon wielded in two hands...the tables only gives stats for 1 handed and light weapons...so if a person wanted to do Thunder and Fang in that manner they would have to maintain those rules. SKR's posts in the past only allowed for the wielding a two handed, wielding a shield (not attacking with it), and having a bomb. The extra hands from the alch is to allow more flexibility on how you do things, but it doesn't remove core rules on things, which is what some wish it to do...

[EvilPaladin]

Shfish wrote:

If your dropping that, why keep the Klar?

Nefreet wrote:

Because Klars are AWESOME?!?

Yeah, that.

[James Risner]

Cascade wrote:

The inflexible stance goes both ways, if he is so inflexible to disallow legal rules, that's hardly reasonable.

I've never disallowed legal rules. But just because you think a line says something doesn't mean others agree.

I always look up on the spot if I'm told I'm off on a ruling, I'm not perfect. But when I've read the rules, I'm not going to suddenly agree with you when you say I'm wrong after checking.

This is the real danger of this awkward RAW stuff where a group online assert the text means X and reject the other valid meanings such as Y. Most of these proponents of X are inflexible in the face of anyone who reads it as Y. So I'm never the inflexible one, but I've sat at multiple tables in my 250+ table experience (play and GM combined) with others that have been and generally they take the X position.

[Cascade]

Shfish wrote:

Thats the thing...its not a legal rule. The only way it works is for you to discount other rules that apply ...and that is not playing by RAW. So what I said to you is still valid. I didn't say a GM should try to disallow legal choices just because they don't like it...far from it, as I said you would have to allow the normal sized wielded two handed as that one is fine within the rules.

Although as per RAW there isn't a way to TWF with a weapon wielded in two hands...the tables only gives stats for 1 handed and light weapons...so if a person wanted to do Thunder and Fang in that manner they would have to maintain those rules. SKR's posts in the past only allowed for the wielding a two handed, wielding a shield (not attacking with it), and having a bomb. The extra hands from the alch is to allow more flexibility on how you do things, but it doesn't remove core rules on things, which is what some wish it to do...

First James quoted...

--------------------------------
I would not recommend going that route in PFS.
But otherwise, yes, you can wield a 2H weapon in two hands, a shield in your third, and throw bombs with your fourth.
I also wouldn't allow this build in a PFS game by RAW.
------------------------------------
Then I commented...what I did and you jumped in.

Now he later changed that to large specifically, which I also agree is a bit grey. And now you also agree with the base concept 2H weapon in two hands, a shield in your third, and throw bombs with your fourth.

I won't sidetrack with a rehash of SKR rules but he basically said..

You can't gain extra attacks with vestigial arms. Period.

Having a 2 handed weapon and a shield or an off hand weapon using TWF grant only 2 attacks, the exact same as the original toon. You can make semantics however you like, but that's the print.
I'm am in no way taking an extra attack.

As far as TWF, it primary and secondary...not 1 handed. Although I can see where that would vary by interpretation.

I'm also lost on the shield opinion, I've seen plenty of builds using a shield as an off hand attack and even as a primary.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Cascade wrote:

Shfish wrote:

Thats the thing...its not a legal rule. The only way it works is for you to discount other rules that apply ...and that is not playing by RAW. So what I said to you is still valid. I didn't say a GM should try to disallow legal choices just because they don't like it...far from it, as I said you would have to allow the normal sized wielded two handed as that one is fine within the rules.

Although as per RAW there isn't a way to TWF with a weapon wielded in two hands...the tables only gives stats for 1 handed and light weapons...so if a person wanted to do Thunder and Fang in that manner they would have to maintain those rules. SKR's posts in the past only allowed for the wielding a two handed, wielding a shield (not attacking with it), and having a bomb. The extra hands from the alch is to allow more flexibility on how you do things, but it doesn't remove core rules on things, which is what some wish it to do...

First James quoted...

--------------------------------
I would not recommend going that route in PFS.
But otherwise, yes, you can wield a 2H weapon in two hands, a shield in your third, and throw bombs with your fourth.
I also wouldn't allow this build in a PFS game by RAW.
------------------------------------
Then I commented...what I did and you jumped in.

Now he later changed that to large specifically, which I also agree is a bit grey. And now you also agree with the base concept 2H weapon in two hands, a shield in your third, and throw bombs with your fourth.

I won't sidetrack with a rehash of SKR rules but he basically said..

You can't gain extra attacks with vestigial arms. Period.

Having a 2 handed weapon and a shield or an off hand weapon using TWF grant only 2 attacks, the exact same as the original toon. You can make semantics however you like, but that's the print.
I'm am in no way taking an extra attack.

As far as TWF, it primary and secondary...not 1 handed. Although I can see where that would vary by interpretation....

I believe this is what they are talking about when referring to "no extra attacks."

Basically, if you cannot use a Large Earthbreaker and the Klar without the Vestigial Arm, then even if you include the Vestigial Arm, you still can't. Sure, you can have the extra arms hold onto them, but they cannot be used to make or help make attacks.

[James Risner]

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Basically, if you cannot use a Large Earthbreaker and the Klar without the Vestigial Arm, then even if you include the Vestigial Arm, you still can't. Sure, you can have the extra arms hold onto them, but they cannot be used to make or help make attacks.

Right FAQ yes. A particularly complex FAQ.

But many more things are contested:

• A large Earthbreak is still a "3 handed" weapon for a Medium.
  
• You can't use Thunder and Fang to wield a Large one in two hands.