|
graystone, I think you're getting stuck on the whole "not getting to the lower attack" thing. That part is irrelevant due to how the "no extra attacks" clause is explained to work via the FAQ. It doesn't matter how or why you could have gotten those attacks, all the matters is where you could you have taken X attacks had you not taken the discovery, and is the number you actually took that amount or fewer? If so, it's valid. That's the only restriction the FAQ gives us, and is how they define what the phrase "no extra attacks" means.
I will totally agree that the net result of that FAQ ruling is superbly goofy, but that's what the consequences are. And it means a potential BAB+16 attack retinue of +14/14/14/14/9/9/9(natural) if you have all three discoveries.
So the long and short of it is, *WHERE* the attacks you gain come from is irrelevant. All that is relevant is that you could have taken them.
You can make a separate thread on the off-hands issue alone if you wish. I have enough of a headache from this thread to last me just fine :/
PS: My assumption is that they will probably also claim "no extra off-hands" on these arms as well, both to block the original example I gave *and* the dual-wielding two-handers example. Because martials can't use psuedo-magical things to have nice things, after all ;).
i actuly used a build similar but not to gain more atacks\better bab.
i used it to wield 2 greatsowrds.
with double slice ur off hand attacks get full str bonus for damage.
i also argued that you can pick multi weapon feat with 4 arms. the feat doesn't say you hae to fight with 3 or more arms. only that you HAVE 3 or more arms. and since i did't increase my number of attacks just the weapon wielded( as normaly i don't have enough hands to hold 2 greatsowrds in combat and now i do) only problem i had was wether power attacking with the off hand after double slice get 3 points of damage for every 1 point of atac kpanilty or not since it says both "This bonus to damage is increased by half (+50%) if you are making an attack with a two-handed weapon" and "This bonus to damage is halved (–50%) if you are making an attack with an off-hand weapon " now the question is if the double slice neg the hald str damage of off hand attack. does it actuyl make it not an off hand attack(as the only difrence from main to off ahnd weapon attacks are the panilties for 2 weapon fighting wich are the same with the 2wf feat and it's equvilent. and the hlaf str of off hand wich is not anymoe with double slice.) or since it is named off hand attack even if it is the same as the main hand then power attack panilty still apply. in the end my gm ruled that the off hand get normal 2 extra damage for every 1 panilty reason it both get 50% more for 2 handed and 50% less for off hand.
as per the two handed while using armor spikes FAQ you cannot use the arms to wield additional two-handed weapons, two-handed weapons take up your entire effort for a section of BAB.
graystone, you can assume we know the core rules here. The crux of the issue is really whether "no extra attacks" means "no extra off-hands". Since "no extra attacks" didn't preclude adding a new natural attack with tentacle, why would it automatically preclude adding new off-hands with vestigial arms?
because it doesn't say you gain more off-hands? that was the crux of my arguement earlier.
people seem to think people just always have off-hands, but in reality they're only mentioned in TWF while attacking, and thus only used during this specific time, and are chosen on attack just like every other normal attack. you can probably even swap what weapon you consider your off-hand mid full attack if you've already made a combo
off-hands do not exist outside of an attack, since nothing in vestigial arms gives you the ability to use more off-hands, you do not gain any. off-hands do not correlate to an actual hand as you can swap what weapon is your main hand after every attack sequence of your BAB that your TWF feats allow.
edit: i'd also argue that swapping out an attack for another is still making an "extra" attack and then just dropping another(or else where did you get this attack that you swapped in?). you still made an extra attack but simply replaced it with another.
PS: My assumption is that they will probably also claim "no extra off-hands" on these arms as well, both to block the original example I gave *and* the dual-wielding two-handers example. Because martials can't use psuedo-magical things to have nice things, after all ;).
my assumption would be they would do the usual with what they do for these kind of things.
"no FAQ was needed" showing how obvious they feel the correct interpretation to be.
|
|
PS: My assumption is that they will probably also claim "no extra off-hands" on these arms as well, both to block the original example I gave *and* the dual-wielding two-handers example. Because martials can't use psuedo-magical things to have nice things, after all ;).my assumption would be they would do the usual with what they do for these kind of things.
"no FAQ was needed" showing how obvious they feel the correct interpretation to be.
Problem with "no FAQ was needed" is when it's not actually obvious and they just believe it is because they forget how many unwritten rules are involved. It's easy for that to happen when you're a designer.
Example: Nothing in the game says you get extra off-hands. Ever. And yet multi-weapon fighting exists, which can only function if adding more arms also adds more off-hands. So which is it? Is the feat impossible to use, or does adding arms grant extra off-hands? One assumes it's the latter, but then did they intend vestigial arms to deny extra off-hands, or just extra attacks (as currently written and FAQ'd)?
If there is any "obvious" answer, it's that my original example is 100% legal, because it follows the simplest explanation of existing rules while relying on no additional constructs. To deny it requires connecting "no extra attacks" to "no extra off-hands", which would be a new rule with no precedent and in contradiction with the existing FAQ. The reason I posted this in the first place was to (A) see if there was some *real* rule I was missing and (B) point out the potential for abuse so that, if desired, the FAQ could be amended.
In other words, unless someone can show a /written/ rule to the contrary that is compatible with the existing FAQ answer, we have to go with the FAQ and allow Mr. Mutation Warrior to have 4 attacks at full BAB thanks to his arms, so long as he has lower attacks to give up in order to do so. I doubt this is actually a balance issue, but it's close enough that I could see many people knee-jerk banning it anyway.
EDIT: It also makes me nervous because the legality of the combo is only validated by unwritten rules and a FAQ. Nothing written invalidates it, but still.
Natural arms work differently than vestigial arms.
|
|
I'm aware that the two work differently. The ability + FAQ work together to explain how: They are normal arms except that you can't take extra attacks. Extra being defined as more than you could take if you didn't have the arms. Is it weird that having ITWF and GWTF can, effectively, grant another attack at higher BAB? Yes, it is, but that's how it seems to work.
We have different definitions of weird.
|
StabbittyDoom is correct in the original post. If "multi-weapon fighting" is allowed, the vestigial arms give two additional arms from which to make attacks. Once you have the platform from which to launch the attacks, you may swap out your attack regimen with any other attack regimen you are able to make.
The only reason that vestigial arms rules say they don't grant extra attacks is to keep from granting extra attacks. If they did grant extra attacks, everything would be more powerful. 9/9/9/9/4/4 would turn into 9/9/9/9/4/4/1/1.
But let's keep it in perspective. 9/9/9/9/4/4 is only gained by burning 5 feats.
We have different definitions of weird.You don't find anything about the way the Eidolon works, to be weird, in relation to the rules, or are you just disagreeing with me, to disagree with me?
I know you enjoy that.;)
I was replying to stabbity. I don't find anything weird about the TWF feats making you better at TWF.
|
|
I was replying to stabbity. I don't find anything weird about the TWF feats making you better at TWF.We have different definitions of weird.You don't find anything about the way the Eidolon works, to be weird, in relation to the rules, or are you just disagreeing with me, to disagree with me?
I know you enjoy that.;)
... well when you put it like that it does seem a lot less weird.
|
|
Example: Nothing in the game says you get extra off-hands. Ever.What about this?
Prerequisites: None; Benefit: Members of this race possess three arms. A member of this race can wield multiple weapons, but only one hand is its primary hand, and all others are off hands. It can also use its hands for other purposes that require free hands. Special: This trait can be taken up to twice. When it is taken a second time, the race gains a fourth arm.
Where is that from? ARG?
EDIT: Nvm, found it. Apparently yes. So I guess there is some RAW that shows that +arm == +off-hand. Thanks a bunch for pointing this out, NikolaiJuno.
PS: My assumption is that they will probably also claim "no extra off-hands" on these arms as well, both to block the original example I gave *and* the dual-wielding two-handers example. Because martials can't use psuedo-magical things to have nice things, after all ;).my assumption would be they would do the usual with what they do for these kind of things.
"no FAQ was needed" showing how obvious they feel the correct interpretation to be.
Problem with "no FAQ was needed" is when it's not actually obvious and they just believe it is because they forget how many unwritten rules are involved. It's easy for that to happen when you're a designer.
Example: Nothing in the game says you get extra off-hands. Ever. And yet multi-weapon fighting exists, which can only function if adding more arms also adds more off-hands. So which is it? Is the feat impossible to use, or does adding arms grant extra off-hands? One assumes it's the latter, but then did they intend vestigial arms to deny extra off-hands, or just extra attacks (as currently written and FAQ'd)?
If there is any "obvious" answer, it's that my original example is 100% legal, because it follows the simplest explanation of existing rules while relying on no additional constructs. To deny it requires connecting "no extra attacks" to "no extra off-hands", which would be a new rule with no precedent and in contradiction with the existing FAQ. The reason I posted this in the first place was to (A) see if there was some *real* rule I was missing and (B) point out the potential for abuse so that, if desired, the FAQ could be amended.
In other words, unless someone can show a /written/ rule to the contrary that is compatible with the existing FAQ answer, we have to go with the FAQ and allow Mr. Mutation Warrior to have 4 attacks at full BAB thanks to his arms, so long as he has lower attacks to give up in order to do so. I doubt this is actually a balance issue, but it's close enough that I...
according to teh devs you never gain extra off-hands, you simply have a set number for life... unless you're an eidolon anyway.
Nothing written invalidates it, but still.
nothing validates it though, as i explained, it does not give you extra off-hands and this is because the devs never want you to gain them. pretty simply.
Example: Nothing in the game says you get extra off-hands. Ever.What about this?
Prerequisites: None; Benefit: Members of this race possess three arms. A member of this race can wield multiple weapons, but only one hand is its primary hand, and all others are off hands. It can also use its hands for other purposes that require free hands. Special: This trait can be taken up to twice. When it is taken a second time, the race gains a fourth arm.Where is that from? ARG?
EDIT: Nvm, found it. Apparently yes. So I guess there is some RAW that shows that +arm == +off-hand. Thanks a bunch for pointing this out, NikolaiJuno.
it had to specifically clarify the number of off-hands, it is an exception to the rule that you have one off-hand, not something supporting your rule.
anyway regardless of what your saying is RAW the "de facto" of how pathfinder plays is this doesn't work.
"de jure" you may be correct, but pathfinder doesn't actually play this way and thus, this isn't really pathfinder that your trying to put forward.
BASICALLY
you keep saying "it doesn't say you can't" where we're still trying to find where it says you can.
Multi-Armed: A kasatha has four arms. One hand is considered its primary hand; all others are considered off hands. It can use any of its hands for other purposes that require free hands.
|
|
Example: Nothing in the game says you get extra off-hands. Ever.What about this?
Prerequisites: None; Benefit: Members of this race possess three arms. A member of this race can wield multiple weapons, but only one hand is its primary hand, and all others are off hands. It can also use its hands for other purposes that require free hands. Special: This trait can be taken up to twice. When it is taken a second time, the race gains a fourth arm.Where is that from? ARG?
EDIT: Nvm, found it. Apparently yes. So I guess there is some RAW that shows that +arm == +off-hand. Thanks a bunch for pointing this out, NikolaiJuno.
it had to specifically clarify the number of off-hands, it is an exception to the rule that you have one off-hand, not something supporting your rule.
anyway regardless of what your saying is RAW the "de facto" of how pathfinder plays is this doesn't work.
"de jure" you may be correct, but pathfinder doesn't actually play this way and thus, this isn't really pathfinder that your trying to put forward.
BASICALLY
you keep saying "it doesn't say you can't" where we're still trying to find where it says you can.
There is no direct RAW on a lot of things. "It doesn't say I can't" and "it doesn't say I can" are equally invalid when you can bring examples of cases that show intent in zones where no hard rules exist. A creature that gains an extra arm, according to the ARG, gains an extra off-hand. Multi-Weapon Fighting only makes sense if more arms grants more off-hands. The minimum necessary number of rules to make both of those things work is one: Adding an arm adds an off-hand. To make vestigial arm not do so would require adding an additional qualifier that restricts it to those born with that number of arms. Occam's Razor and all that.
Examples on the can/can't thing: "It doesn't say I can't act when dead" is always overruled because it's completely unreasonable in all ways. "It doesn't say you can enter ice cream shops" is likewise overruled because WhyTF couldn't you? Both statements are equally invalid, which means that neither form of argument can be treated seriously except where no other reasonable basis for ruling exists.
A lot of rules explicitly clarify things that are completely unnecessary to explicitly clarify. They do so because the rule they restate is extremely obscure or otherwise easy to miss or misinterpret. Also, it's just convenient. The fact that the ARG does so means absolutely nothing with respect to a RAW argument.
@side note: I have no clue what you're talking about. You create an extra attack by wielding two weapons and possessing the TWFing feats. You swap this out for an attack with offhands 3 and/or 4. The character could've gotten X attacks from normal TWFing, but chose to instead gain the same number via MWFing by swapping some TWFing attacks out, as per FAQ. This has been stated a couple times before, firstly in the original post.
There is no direct RAW on a lot of things. "It doesn't say I can't" and "it doesn't say I can" are equally invalid when you can bring examples of cases that show intent in zones where no hard rules exist. A creature that gains an extra arm, according to the ARG, gains an extra off-hand. Multi-Weapon Fighting only makes sense if more arms grants more off-hands. The minimum necessary number of rules to make both of those things work is one: Adding an arm adds an off-hand. To make vestigial arm not do so would require adding an additional qualifier that restricts it to those born with...Example: Nothing in the game says you get extra off-hands. Ever.What about this?
Prerequisites: None; Benefit: Members of this race possess three arms. A member of this race can wield multiple weapons, but only one hand is its primary hand, and all others are off hands. It can also use its hands for other purposes that require free hands. Special: This trait can be taken up to twice. When it is taken a second time, the race gains a fourth arm.Where is that from? ARG?
EDIT: Nvm, found it. Apparently yes. So I guess there is some RAW that shows that +arm == +off-hand. Thanks a bunch for pointing this out, NikolaiJuno.
it had to specifically clarify the number of off-hands, it is an exception to the rule that you have one off-hand, not something supporting your rule.
anyway regardless of what your saying is RAW the "de facto" of how pathfinder plays is this doesn't work.
"de jure" you may be correct, but pathfinder doesn't actually play this way and thus, this isn't really pathfinder that your trying to put forward.
BASICALLY
you keep saying "it doesn't say you can't" where we're still trying to find where it says you can.
actually a race that HAS an extra arm HAS an extra off-hand, because the ability that makes them HAVE above the norm in arms SPECIFICALLY calls out that they also gain additional off-hands.
vestigial arms has no such line, and thus does not give you off-hands.
Examples on the can/can't thing: "It doesn't say I can't act when dead" is always overruled because it's completely unreasonable in all ways. "It doesn't say you can enter ice cream shops" is likewise overruled because WhyTF couldn't you? Both statements are equally invalid, which means that neither form of argument can be treated seriously except where no other reasonable basis for ruling exists.
technichally (and this is slightly off-topic so ignore it but learn that this is sort of wrong), pathfinder says exactly what happens when you die, your shepherded off to the plane of your alignment or what have you. so yes you can still act, your soul just isn't in your pile of flesh anymore.(obviously this is golarion specific as well)
I have no clue what you're talking about. You create an extra attack by wielding two weapons and possessing the TWFing feats. You swap this out for an attack with offhands 3 and/or 4. The character could've gotten X attacks from normal TWFing, but chose to instead gain the same number via MWFing by swapping some TWFing attacks out, as per FAQ. This has been stated a couple times before, firstly in the original post.
so yes, as bolded, you have an extra attack provided by extra arms by your logic that you swap in. that's exactly what you said. you don't say it's only not extra because it wasn't more than you could normally use, you GAINED an attack that you used, even if you decided to not use other attacks.
So you're arguing seriously arguing that Multi-Armed is the specific case, and not just an expression of the general one? If so, I can do nothing for you. We will simply have to disagree.
Ad Hominem (note i don't find this offensive in the least, but you decided to attack me/the fact that I'm arguing something instead of my argument to support your own, which of course is a logical fallacy, which i won't stand for in an interesting debate)
So you're arguing seriously arguing that Multi-Armed is the specific case, and not just an expression of the general one? If so, I can do nothing for you. We will simply have to disagree.
Multi-armed is a specific trait. Vestigial Arms does not grant the multi-armed trait.
And if you truly believe (although I don't think you do) that "I get extra off-hands" is the equivalent of "I can enter ice cream shops," then you really don't understand the rules of this game.
|
|
Examples on the can/can't thing: "It doesn't say I can't act when dead" is always overruled because it's completely unreasonable in all ways. "It doesn't say you can enter ice cream shops" is likewise overruled because WhyTF couldn't you? Both statements are equally invalid, which means that neither form of argument can be treated seriously except where no other reasonable basis for ruling exists.
technichally (and this is slightly off-topic so ignore it but learn that this is sort of wrong), pathfinder says exactly what happens when you die, your shepherded off to the plane of your alignment or what have you. so yes you can still act, your soul just isn't in your pile of flesh anymore.
I have no clue what you're talking about. You create an extra attack by wielding two weapons and possessing the TWFing feats. You swap this out for an attack with offhands 3 and/or 4. The character could've gotten X attacks from normal TWFing, but chose to instead gain the same number via MWFing by swapping some TWFing attacks out, as per FAQ. This has been stated a couple times before, firstly in the original post.so yes, as bolded, you have an extra attack provided by extra arms by your logic that you swap in. that's exactly what you said. you don't say it's only not extra because it wasn't more than you could normally use, you GAINED an attack that you used, even if you decided to not use other attacks.
@The first thing: You know what I meant. The general case, not Golarion-specific.
As for the other, I never gained an extra attack from having the extra arms. The entire point of the FAQ was to show that all that matters is the quantity. If the same character lost those extra two arms he would still have the same number of attacks, just at a lower bonus. There is no "extra attack" being gained, and it isn't a matter of simply "choosing not to use" the other ones. The FAQ shows a natural attack being used in place of a manufactured one (via Tentacle discovery) as an example of a valid case due to it not being an extra attack. And yet, by your logic, the FAQ is wrong because that natural weapon is an attack they didn't have before and therefor counts as "extra".
The limitation is just quantity, not form.
So you're arguing seriously arguing that Multi-Armed is the specific case, and not just an expression of the general one? If so, I can do nothing for you. We will simply have to disagree.Ad Hominem (note i don't find this offensive in the least, but you decided to attack me/the fact that I'm arguing something instead of my argument to support your own, which of course is a logical fallacy, which i won't stand for in an interesting debate)
Ad Hominem requires disregarding the arguments of another by attacking them instead of their argument. I cannot have committed ad hominem because I offered no insult or attack, I simply stated that we would have to agree to disagree on that point. I showed incredulity because I find the stance somewhat difficult to believe, but that is not the same as attacking the debater instead of the argument.
Interestingly, I could quite thoroughly insult you without committing the fallacy so long as I also gave proper response to your arguments.
IMO it's a good idea to avoid invoking fallacies except when you're sure you're talking to a civilized debater as most people will take them as insult, which could ironically put you in the position of committing ad hominem by accusing someone else of having done so.
|
|
So you're arguing seriously arguing that Multi-Armed is the specific case, and not just an expression of the general one? If so, I can do nothing for you. We will simply have to disagree.Multi-armed is a specific trait. Vestigial Arms does not grant the multi-armed trait.
And if you truly believe (although I don't think you do) that "I get extra off-hands" is the equivalent of "I can enter ice cream shops," then you really don't understand the rules of this game.
The example is obviously deliberately ridiculous, yes.
There is nothing to indicate whether multi-armed is meant to be an incarnation of the unwritten general rule, or a specific rule for naturally multi-armed races. There is also nothing substantive upon which to base a debate in either direction on this point, hence why I left it at "agree to disagree".
EDIT: The closest argument I can make for my stance is that it would be unnecessary to say that extra arms grants no extra attacks if being multi-armed didn't default to adding off-hands. However, there would also be no need to state that multi-armed *does* grant off-hands if this were the case. This leaves both sides at an effective stalemate.
So you're arguing seriously arguing that Multi-Armed is the specific case, and not just an expression of the general one? If so, I can do nothing for you. We will simply have to disagree.Multi-armed is a specific trait. Vestigial Arms does not grant the multi-armed trait.
And if you truly believe (although I don't think you do) that "I get extra off-hands" is the equivalent of "I can enter ice cream shops," then you really don't understand the rules of this game.
The example is obviously deliberately ridiculous, yes.
There is nothing to indicate whether multi-armed is meant to be an incarnation of the unwritten general rule, or a specific rule for naturally multi-armed races. There is also nothing substantive upon which to base a debate in either direction on this point, hence why I left it at "agree to disagree".
EDIT: The closest argument I can make for my stance is that it would be unnecessary to say that extra arms grants no extra attacks if being multi-armed didn't default to adding off-hands. However, there would also be no need to state that multi-armed *does* grant off-hands if this were the case. This leaves both sides at an effective stalemate.
You're arguing you get extra off-hands based off of the lack of ice cream shops and you don't feel it would be necessary to say "no extra attacks" if they did not want people to make extra attacks?
|
|
You're arguing you get extra off-hands based off of the lack of ice cream shops and you don't feel it would be necessary to say "no extra attacks" if they did not want people to make extra attacks?So you're arguing seriously arguing that Multi-Armed is the specific case, and not just an expression of the general one? If so, I can do nothing for you. We will simply have to disagree.Multi-armed is a specific trait. Vestigial Arms does not grant the multi-armed trait.
And if you truly believe (although I don't think you do) that "I get extra off-hands" is the equivalent of "I can enter ice cream shops," then you really don't understand the rules of this game.
The example is obviously deliberately ridiculous, yes.
There is nothing to indicate whether multi-armed is meant to be an incarnation of the unwritten general rule, or a specific rule for naturally multi-armed races. There is also nothing substantive upon which to base a debate in either direction on this point, hence why I left it at "agree to disagree".
EDIT: The closest argument I can make for my stance is that it would be unnecessary to say that extra arms grants no extra attacks if being multi-armed didn't default to adding off-hands. However, there would also be no need to state that multi-armed *does* grant off-hands if this were the case. This leaves both sides at an effective stalemate.
Ignore the ice cream shops. They aren't relevant to this point. They were a mental exercise meant to point out a logical pitfall then discarded thereafter, not something to be harped upon repeatedly.
What I'm arguing is that either Multi-Armed has an unnecessary clause stating that you get extra off-hands, or Vestigial Arms has an unnecessary clause stating that you get no extra attacks. If the former were necessary, the latter would not be be. If the latter were necessary, the former would not be. Rules are often restated for clarity, so either is an equally good candidate for redundancy.
In either case I absolutely understand the compulsion to repeat the rule. In the case of multi-armed, even if redundant, they would want it to be clear that the power cost assumes you gain all the commensurate attack capability from the extra arm (which is not trivial). In the case of Vestigial Arm, they would want it to be clear that you cannot increase your attack total (which is the main draw of extra arms for most). Neither needs to be a necessary clause for it to be a good idea to include them. The more niche the use case, the more clarity that is needed.
I lean towards the extra off-hands remark in Multi-Armed being redundant (thus making the Vestigial Arms part necessary), but I also understand that there is no convincing case to be made in either direction. Hence, agree to disagree.
Stabbitty -
What you haven't demonstrated yet is any evidence that those attacks with 3+ hands don't take the iterative attack penalty.
I think it's very likely that a character with a +6 BAB could do an attack sequence of two attacks with weapon A, an attack with off-hand weapon B, and an attack with off-hand weapon C using ITWF (assuming 3 arms for now), but the second attack with A and the attack with C would still take the extra -5 for being iterative attacks.
|
|
Stabbitty -
What you haven't demonstrated yet is any evidence that those attacks with 3+ hands don't take the iterative attack penalty.
I think it's very likely that a character with a +6 BAB could do an attack sequence of two attacks with weapon A, an attack with off-hand weapon B, and an attack with off-hand weapon C using ITWF (assuming 3 arms for now), but the second attack with A and the attack with C would still take the extra -5 for being iterative attacks.
The FAQ gave a very simple answer and didn't care about iterative attack penalties whatsoever. Conveniently it also dodged answering the question thoroughly by not giving an example that possessed one. If they had, I wouldn't have even posted this thread.
All we have is that the prime limitation on vestigial arms compared to normal extra arms is the "no extra attacks" rule. The FAQ defines that to mean "no more than you could have taken if you didn't have the discovery". That definition's simplicity ignores any and all potential attack penalties that might be relevant for one attack over another. By "RAW" of the FAQ, the iterative penalties don't matter, only the total quantity of attacks. The RAI may be different, but there isn't strong evidence to show RAI for this case.
As for the other, I never gained an extra attack from having the extra arms. The entire point of the FAQ was to show that all that matters is the quantity. If the same character lost those extra two arms he would still have the same number of attacks, just at a lower bonus. There is no "extra attack" being gained, and it isn't a matter of simply "choosing not to use" the other ones. The FAQ shows a natural attack being used in place of a manufactured one (via Tentacle discovery) as an example of a valid case due to it not being an extra attack. And yet, by your logic, the FAQ is wrong because that natural weapon is an attack they didn't have before and therefor counts as "extra".
The limitation is just quantity, not form.
if you are adding in an attack with you extra arm you had to generate an attack that was not there prior, that is an extra attack, ignoring other attacks for the end quantity does not matter, as you still generated an attack that would not have been there.
So you're arguing seriously arguing that Multi-Armed is the specific case, and not just an expression of the general one? If so, I can do nothing for you. We will simply have to disagree.
Ad Hominem requires disregarding the arguments of another by attacking them instead of their argument. I cannot have committed ad hominem because I offered no insult or attack, I simply stated that we would have to agree to disagree on that point. I showed incredulity because I find the stance somewhat difficult to believe, but that is not the same as attacking the debater instead of the argument.
your argument was focused around me as an individual, and not my argument. an Ad Hominem does not need to be an insult, but an attack on the person instead of the argument. the bolded also implies that there is something wrong with me. you stated then after that, that we would have to agree to disagree, which was not at all the beginning and end of your statement, nor part of the ad hominem.
also, the unnecessary-ness of multi-armed cannot be successfully argued.
All that can be said for certain is multi-armed adds off-hands explicitly and that vestigial arms does not. in essence, we have evidense we can point to, you have to bring up speculation. in a Legal case the lawyer bringing up speculation would have an objection placed on him, and he would have to stop.
|
|
You have no better evidence than I do, as I have already pointed out. Both the argument for and the argument against rely on the assumption of non-redundancy in precisely one rule. You can't claim that the same kind of argument works in one case and not in the other without some other aspect of the argument being different.
The example I gave is not gaining an extra attack using the definition given by the FAQ. I would appreciate it if you stopped inventing your own definitions when one has been explicitly provided. Especially when your definition would prohibit an example given by the FAQ itself as a valid usage (the Tentacle example, which would not be possible under your definition of "extra" as the natural attack itself would be considered an extra under that definition).
You have no better evidence than I do, as I have already pointed out. Both the argument for and the argument against rely on the assumption of non-redundandancy in precisely one rule. You can't claim that the same kind of argument works in one case and not in the other without some other aspect of the argument being different.
The example I gave is not gaining an extra attack using the definition given by the FAQ. I would appreciate it if you stopped inventing your own definitions when one has been explicitly provided. Especially when your definition would prohibit an example given by the FAQ itself as a valid usage (the Tentacle example, which would not be possible under your definition of "extra" as the natural attack itself would be considered an extra under that definition).
Occom's razor, I have to assume the least when I simply read the rules to do exactly what they say. relying on the possibility for redundancy isn't something that favors your argument. in essence, our assumption is more rooted in evidence than yours. you rely on the evidence not being evidence of anything.
the definition of the FAQ is "no more than you could have taken if you didn't have the discovery"? exactly you are taking an attack that you did not have before and then ignoring the later attacks, you ARE making MORE attacks that you COULD NOT have done otherwise if you did not have the discovery. as mentioned, choosing to not take the left over attacks does not change the fact that you generated more attacks thanks to the discovery.
this explicitly goes against the quoted.
to clarify.
you have 3 attacks +6/+6/+1
if you got a single vestigial arm, you cannot generate an additional +6, you only have 2 of them.
your trying to do this +6/+6/+6 and then ignore the +1, when you still CAN TAKE the +1, you simply choose not to, so that you don't break your interpretation of the FAQ. you have taken 1 more +6 than you had, you generated more attacks thanks to the discovery. the +1 doesn't stop existing, there is nothing removing it explicitly or implicitly, so your still left with more attacks than vestigial arms allows.
|
|
You have no better evidence than I do, as I have already pointed out. Both the argument for and the argument against rely on the assumption of non-redundandancy in precisely one rule. You can't claim that the same kind of argument works in one case and not in the other without some other aspect of the argument being different.
The example I gave is not gaining an extra attack using the definition given by the FAQ. I would appreciate it if you stopped inventing your own definitions when one has been explicitly provided. Especially when your definition would prohibit an example given by the FAQ itself as a valid usage (the Tentacle example, which would not be possible under your definition of "extra" as the natural attack itself would be considered an extra under that definition).
Occom's razor, I have to assume the least when I simply read the rules to do exactly what they say. relying on the possibility for redundancy isn't something that favors your argument. in essence, our assumption is more rooted in evidence than yours.
the definition of the FAQ is "no more than you could have taken if you didn't have the discovery"? exactly you are taking an attack that you did not have before and then ignoring the later attacks, you ARE making MORE attacks that you COULD NOT have done otherwise if you did not have the discovery. as mentioned, choosing to not take the left over attacks does not change the fact that you generated more attacks thanks to the discovery.
this explicitly goes against the quoted.
to clarify.
you have 3 attacks +6/+6/+1
if you got a single vestigial arm, you cannot generate an additional +6, you only have 2 of them.
your trying to do this +6/+6/+6 and then ignore the +1, when you still CAN TAKE the +1, you simply choose not to, so that you don't break your interpretation of the FAQ. you have taken 1 more +6 than you had, you generated more attacks thanks to the discovery.
Again, you are reading the entirety of the FAQ-given definition wrong. It doesn't care about source or what you have to give up, it cares about total quantity.
The Tentacle FAQ says that if you were a TWFer with tentacle you could either do your -2/-2, OR take -2/-5 by replacing one TWFing attack with the natural attack. By your definition this would be disallowed because the natural attack is an "extra" and I'm just "ignoring" my other TWFing attack. Obviously your definition cannot be correct unless the FAQ is wrong.
As to your "Occam's Razor" argument: If having four arms did not default to granting extra off-hands, the no extra attacks rule of vestigial arms would be redundant. If having four arms DID default to granting extra off-hands, the Multi-Arm rule is redundant. Either way, precisely one redundant rule based entirely on an assumption of whether having 4 arms typically grants you additional off-hands or not. Occam's razor does not resolve this because both interpretations rely on the same number of invented entities. Both have the same number of assumptions (1) that are equally valid with respect to all other RAW.
"no more than you could have taken if you didn't have the discovery"
you could still take the +1 you simply choose not to, this is the entire crux of your argument. if you couldn't do that attack before, you cannot with the discovery. your ignoring the fact that nothing removes the attacks you choose not to use, and thus they can(or could, as the case may be) still be used, thus breaking the FAQ.
The Tentacle FAQ says that if you were a TWFer with tentacle you could either do your -2/-2, OR take -2/-5 by replacing one TWFing attack with the natural attack. By your definition this would be disallowed because the natural attack is an "extra" and I'm just "ignoring" my other TWFing attack. Obviously your definition cannot be correct unless the FAQ is wrong.
that is a specific exception provided by the tentacle discovery and explained by the FAQ. the wording is noticeably different as well.
"The tentacle does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round, though he can use it to make a tentacle attack (1d4 damage for a Medium alchemist, 1d3 damage for a Small one) with the grab ability."
which seems to say that it behaves like a manufactured weapon you are wielding, and not like a "normal" natural weapon, when used in conjunction with the clarification of the FAQ.
|
|
"no more than you could have taken if you didn't have the discovery"you could still take the +1 you simply choose not to, this is the entire crux of your argument. if you couldn't do that attack before, you cannot with the discovery. your ignoring the fact that nothing removes the attacks you choose not to use, and thus they can still be used, thus breaking the FAQ.
Your selective highlighting is actually an anti-clarification. The entire quote is important.
How many attacks could you have taken without the discovery? Call that X. Now, start making attacks. When you reach X, you're done. That fact is the entire limitation of the "no extra attacks" clause. If you took more, then and only then would you have taken more than you could have if you didn't have the discovery.
It doesn't say you don't *HAVE* more than that number of attack forms, it simply prohibits you from taking them. That's the entire point of the limitation: You have those attacks, you just can't take them all. You have to choose.
The Tentacle example given has 3 attacks: Main hand, off-hand, tentacle. However, without Tentacle, you could only have taken 2 attacks (main hand and off-hand). Because of that, you can make any normally valid combination of attacks with main hand, off-hand, and tentacle you want, as long as you don't exceed 2.
Claiming that tentacle is a special flower requires claiming that the definition of "no extra attacks" is different for one or the other, but the definition is only given once by the FAQ then applied to both.
As to your "Occam's Razor" argument: If having four arms did not default to granting extra off-hands, the no extra attacks rule of vestigial arms would be redundant. If having four arms DID default to granting extra off-hands, the Multi-Arm rule is redundant. Either way, precisely one redundant rule based entirely on an assumption of whether having 4 arms typically grants you additional off-hands or not. Occam's razor does not resolve this because both interpretations rely on the same number of invented entities. Both have the same number of assumptions (1) that are equally valid with respect to all other RAW.
except my side assumes nothing, we simply state, multi-armed brings up extra off-hands, vestigial arms does not. you assume that multi-arms in redundant and that vestigial arms doesn't say you don't gain any therefore you can.
you need something to say something happens for it to happen. nothing states you gain off-hands, which would be an exception to the rule that you have 1, so you still only have 1.
we are stating that no change occurs, because none is mentioned. - no assumptions.
you are assuming that the FAQ didn't explicitly limit off-hands, and thus it must have been an assumed by-product.
which we both know isn't RAI, and it clearly isn't RAW. so, i'm not entirely sure what you ARE basing your argument on, other than the possibility that their unwritten rules don't follow their RAI or their RAW? in which case who or what is the game based off of? neither the intent of the devs nor what they actually wrote down, but some mysterious third option that doesn't have any connection to the devs at all?
basically if it isn't written down it's the Dev's RAI, if it is it's RAW. neither support gaining an extra off-hand.
"no more than you could have taken if you didn't have the discovery"you could still take the +1 you simply choose not to, this is the entire crux of your argument. if you couldn't do that attack before, you cannot with the discovery. your ignoring the fact that nothing removes the attacks you choose not to use, and thus they can still be used, thus breaking the FAQ.Your selective highlighting is actually an anti-clarification. The entire quote is important.
How many attacks could you have taken without the discovery? Call that X. Now, start making attacks. When you reach X, you're done. That fact is the entire limitation of the "no extra attacks" clause. If you took more, then and only then would you have taken more than you could have if you didn't have the discovery.
this isn't how the game works though, you get an explicit attack routine and CAN choose to take any and all of them on full attack in any order. choosing not to still means there was a "could have" involved. Basically it doesn't limit you from taking attacks, it says you cannot take any that you would not of otherwise had with out the discovery.
I simply quoted what you provided in regards to the FAQ, i'm horrible at finding FAQs on my own, so if you could linkify the relevant FAQs it would be appreciated.
The Tentacle example given has 3 attacks: Main hand, off-hand, tentacle. However, without Tentacle, you could only have taken 2 attacks (main hand and off-hand). Because of that, you can make any normally valid combination of attacks with main hand, off-hand, and tentacle you want, as long as you don't exceed 2.Claiming that tentacle is a special flower requires claiming that the definition of "no extra attacks" is different for one or the other, but the definition is only given once by the FAQ then applied to both.
the FAQ provided and the tentacle's writing don't use the "no extra attack" wording. it uses "any extra attacks or actions per round". (meaning RAI they have different limitations)
RAI, this is to allow you to use a tentacle instead of your manufactured weapon. as this is the only thing that discovery provides.
"make a tentacle attack (1d4 damage for a Medium alchemist, 1d3 damage for a Small one) with the grab ability. The tentacle can manipulate or hold items as well as the alchemist’s original arms can (for example, allowing the alchemist to use one hand to wield a weapon, the tentacle to hold a potion, and the third hand to throw a bomb). "
so to clarify what are we arguing RAW or RAI? because neither allow an extra off-hand with vestigial arms, for different reasons. the unwritten rules and FAQs are RAI, and RAW vestigial arms do not provide an extra off-hand.
|
|
Alright, we've stopped bringing in new points, we need to stop.
Fun fact: Play a character with Vestigial Arms. Use an extract of Monstrous Physique I and become a 4-armed witchwyrd. Observe your 3 off-hands without weird limitations despite not actually increasing your arm quantity. Funny how spells get to have all the fun, eh?
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/monstrous-humanoids/witch wyrd
Alright, we've stopped bringing in new points, we need to stop.
Fun fact: Play a character with Vestigial Arms. Use an extract of Monstrous Physique I and become a 4-armed witchwyrd. Observe your 3 off-hands without weird limitations despite not actually increasing your arm quantity. Funny how spells get to have all the fun, eh?
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/monstrous-humanoids/witch wyrd
yes, there's a clause that monster's can break the rules for their concept, and they do quite often. (or in essence things appear on monster stat blocks for no reason other than they can.)
but still I am curious, are we fighting RAW or RAI, we know RAI doesn't sopport your side, as you've attested as much, and RAW Vestigial arms do almost nothing.
Seriously though, they're useful for when you need free hands or if you need specific things in your hands and can't waste action economy on swapping them out(like wands or staffs or metamagic rods, etc).
|
|
We were effectively arguing both RAW and RAI in tandem, as the issue in question depends on both.
Personally, I really hate that spells are allowed to do so many things as a matter of course, but it takes a feat to even get a terrible version of a spell just because "it can be used all day!" When, in reality, there are few abilities were that's actually important.
The worst part? People are often totally on board with that, willing to go to great lengths to argue that something must be as useless as the text could possibly allow, but then go to the opposite extreme with spells. (Not pointing a finger at you here, the situation overall just reminds me of how this kind of thing tends to go down.)
But now I wander *completely* off-topic...
yeah, personally, I would prefer the whole off-hand deal was more laid out, but that would require writing space. I'm of the opinion though that multiple off-hands can be game breaking in that every martial would want them. it's 2 levels of alchemist and then you gain get 4 attacks at the cost of 2 feats and 1 BAB, which nets you 2.5 str damage per attack wave and 5 damage from power attack.
not that this changes how I argue, I simply find the devs RAI to be solid in this regard at least.
we're lucky though that most people don't use alter self to get Kasatha all the time(WHY IS IT JUST HUMANOID?!?!?!)
|
|
Well, I am operating under the assumption that Vestigial Arms would only let me go from having two at high BAB and 2 at -5 to have 4 at high BAB, rather than actually adding more to the total quantity, but sure. More arms would always be better as a martial. The Marilith and Hekatonkheires are both good examples of that.
Also, no need to sac BAB if you go Mutation Warrior fighter archetype. It's allowed to take vestigial arms :). You will still need to sac 2 feats/equivalents for it, though.
Never realisized that Kasatha was humanoid. So I guess instead of sacking two feats the fighter can just grab a 12k greater hat of disguise and get more attacks (instead of normal TWFing quantity at higher BAB, it's normal TWFing quantity +2). The weapon cost, though..
The argument, if I'm following along correctly, is that the arms do give you the extra attacks but you cannot make more than normal so you take the higher BAB attacks and don't make the lower BAB attacks.
|
|
The argument, if I'm following along correctly, is that the arms do give you the extra attacks but you cannot make more than normal so you take the higher BAB attacks and don't make the lower BAB attacks.
Basically yes. They give you extra attacks in the everything-but-these-two-discoveries definition, but not in the definition set forth for these two abilities by the FAQ. Since the FAQ definition is that you can't have more, not that you can't have better, you can give up a -5 BAB for a full BAB with a second off-hand. (And do it again with the third, if you have another attack to give up.)
This transforms, to use my original example, a +9/+9/+4/+4/-1/-1 routine into a +9/+9/+9/+9/+4/+4 routine. Same number of attacks, but now with better to-hit. Sadly, it also means you need more weapons, which is a big wealth problem. Barring unarmed strike (which is not precisely an optimal choice) you have to take into account the loss of at least 1 or 2 points of to-hit due to spreading your wealth thin for those weapons. Unless you have a caster in the party that really likes blowing spell slots on Greater Magic Weapon, but that's what good teammates are for, yeah? (Sadly, this still leaves you with potential DR problems.)