mofo99
 member, 386 posts
 May the hair on your
 feet never fall off
Thu 14 Jul 2016
at 04:16
Pathfinder - Two Off Hands?
Lets say there's a character with 4 arms. He dual-wields 2 Great-swords. What Strength bonuses to damage does he get?

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics...res#TOC-Strength-Str-:
Off-hand attacks receive only half the character's Strength bonus, while two-handed attacks receive 1–1/2 times the Strength bonus.

I guess the answer is either:
    [A] 1.5 and 1.5 since both greatswords are being wielded with 2 hands, or
    [B] 1.5 and 0.5 since 2 of the 4 total hands are likely 'off-hands'

Thoughts?

This message was last updated by the user at 04:16, Thu 14 July 2016.

Skald
 moderator, 717 posts
 Whatever it is,
 I'm against it
Thu 14 Jul 2016
at 06:11
Pathfinder - Two Off Hands?
My gut instinct was that there would still be only one dominant hand, and all the rest would be off-hand.

Seems to be backed up by the entry for the Demon, Marilith in the Pathfinder Bestiary (what kind of name is that !  What was wrong with 'Type 5 Demon' !  <grins> ) which lists one attack with damage 2d6+8 and five attacks with damage 2d6+4.

That's with weapons - on the other hand the Slam attack for the Marilith is listed as 6 x 1d8+7.

Rules don't seem to spell it out exactly, but do seem to support my thoughts above as Slam is a natural attack ...

p179 of the PHB has: "Off-Hand Weapon: When you deal damage with a weapon in your off hand, you add only 1/2 your Strength bonus. If you have a Strength penalty, the entire penalty applies."

p301-302 of the Bestiary has: "Natural Attacks: Most creatures possess one or more natural attacks (attacks made without a weapon). These attacks fall into one of two categories, primary and secondary attacks. Primary attacks are made using the creature’s full base attack bonus and add the creature’s full Strength bonus on damage rolls. Secondary attacks are made using the creature’s base attack bonus –5 and add only 1/2 the creature’s Strength bonus on damage rolls. If a creature has only one natural attack, it is always made using the creature’s full base attack bonus and adds 1-1/2 times the creature’s Strength bonus on damage rolls. This increase does not apply if the creature has multiple attacks but only takes one. If a creature has only one type of attack, but has multiple attacks per round, that attack is treated as a primary attack, regardless of its type. "
mofo99
 member, 387 posts
 May the hair on your
 feet never fall off
Thu 14 Jul 2016
at 13:29
Pathfinder - Two Off Hands?
In reply to Skald (msg # 2):

Sure, that is one was to explain someone wielding a single one-handed or light weapon in each of several hands hands (or using natural attacks).

However, discussion of how many dominant hands a multi-handed creature has aside:

My confusion is with wielding a weapon two-handed. Assuming the creature has two off-hands, does using two off-hands = two-handed?
Skald
 moderator, 718 posts
 Whatever it is,
 I'm against it
Thu 14 Jul 2016
at 13:42
Pathfinder - Two Off Hands?
Ah !  I see what you're getting at.  No, I don't think they covered that ... looking at it logically, your four handed creature has:

Primary hand STR bonus x 1
Secondary hand #1 STR bonus x 0.5
Secondary hand #2 STR bonus x 0.5
Secondary hand #3 STR bonus x 0.5

So my take is different to your options A and B - I'd be going with:

STR bonus for hand gripped in Primary plus Secondary hand #1 = 1 + 0.5 = x 1.5 (which matches rules for normal two handed weapon use)
STR bonus for hand gripped in Secondary hand #2 plus Secondary hand #3 = 0.5 + 0.5 =  x 1

:>
GamerHandle
 member, 927 posts
 Umm.. yep.
 So, there's this door...
Thu 14 Jul 2016
at 14:55
Pathfinder - Two Off Hands?
Unfortunately, Pathfinder is not nearly as clear about this as 3.5 was when they put-out Savage Species.  In Savage Species (3.5) - it was explicit that multi-armed characters had 1 Primary hand, and n^ the many off-hands.

However, Pathfinder is not quite as explicit.

The finest example of how to see how Pathfinder handles this is probably the Xill:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestia...tings/outsiders/xill

Skald's response makes the most sense in terms of straight-up rules reading of the standard "wielding a two-handed weapon" rules.

However, it really comes down to how does the GM interpret the functionality of multi-attacks and those feats.

Using his (Skald's) underlined section, and comparing it to the Xill (who is a four-armed monster with four short swords) - we see that its primary attack is a claw.  When using JUST claws - all attacks are primary.

However, if it goes to its four short swords - we see that the attacks follow more of the logic Xill presented: half-STR for the off hands.

Thus, two great swords would indeed be:

GS 1) 1.5 STR
GS 2) 1 STR (.5 + .5)
tmagann
 member, 391 posts
Thu 14 Jul 2016
at 15:07
Pathfinder - Two Off Hands?
You folks realize that 2 two handed weapons is rather different than 4 1 handed weapons?

Wouldn't the 2 two handers get in each other's way? Would using 2 two handers even be possible in the first place? I mean, they'd both be held directly in front of the wielder, bringing one down while raising another means arms hitting arms and your own weapons blocking each other, etc. They just can't move around each other the way a horde of one handed weapons can.

I think the whole discussion becomes moot. I don't think it's actually possible to use that second two hander at the same time as the first. A couple one handers and a two hander, sure, but not a couple two handers at once.
mofo99
 member, 388 posts
 May the hair on your
 feet never fall off
Thu 14 Jul 2016
at 15:19
Pathfinder - Two Off Hands?
In reply to tmagann (msg # 6):

I was imagining that one weapon is balanced on the right side of the body, gripped by two right hands, while the other is similarly balanced on the left side of the body, gripped by two left hands. In this arrangement, I don't see how it's any more impossible than a standard two-weapon fighter using a pair of scimitars.

In answer to Skald and GamerHandle, I did see something (I think in the Multiattack section for monsters) that did confirm that exactly 1 hand is Primary and ALL others are Off-hands when wielding weapons. However, that rule still doesn't confirm whether or not 2 Off-hands = Two-handed.

Skald's offering of 0.5 + 0.5 does make sense if Off-hand = 0.5. But the trick is whether or not the pair of hands working together is stronger than simply the sum of its parts.
tmagann
 member, 392 posts
Thu 14 Jul 2016
at 15:40
Pathfinder - Two Off Hands?
In reply to mofo99 (msg # 7):

It's the up and down motion of the swing with a second rack of arms, basically crossed, either directly above or directly below the set doing the swinging...and probably doing some swinging of it's own.

Unless all attacks are going to be side to side, they'll get in each other's way.

I imagine trying to make them work would , at the least, reduce the damage they could do, being unable to get full strength behind any. I just can't see how it could work int he first place.
Skald
 moderator, 719 posts
 Whatever it is,
 I'm against it
Fri 15 Jul 2016
at 05:18
Pathfinder - Two Off Hands?
tmagann:
I don't think it's actually possible to use that second two hander at the same time as the first.

Whereas I can't see it being any different to a 2 armed creature with a weapon in each hand really - assumedly multi-limbed creature's brains are wired to handle such logistics.

Hey, if a Marilith can manage six swords at once, I don't have a problem with 2 hands on each blade working.  :>

But as GamerHandle says, it is ultimately up to the GM.

mofo99:
Skald's offering of 0.5 + 0.5 does make sense if Off-hand = 0.5. But the trick is whether or not the pair of hands working together is stronger than simply the sum of its parts.


I don't think it is any stronger - the calculation of normal two handed damage allows for x1 for primary and x0.5 for secondary, which gives the x1.5 total bonus - so simply the sum of the bonuses that you'd get for wielding a one handed weapon in that particular hand.

So following that rule it seemed logical that wielding the weapon with two secondary arms each with x0.5 STR bonus would get x0.5 + x0.5 = x1.

Edit: ah, thanks for that - 3.5 Savage Species does indeed spell out "each hand used beyond the first adds 1/2 the wielder's strength bonus to the damage".  :>

This message was last edited by the user at 05:25, Fri 15 July 2016.

mofo99
 member, 389 posts
 May the hair on your
 feet never fall off
Fri 15 Jul 2016
at 05:41
Re: Pathfinder - Two Off Hands?
Skald:
Edit: ah, thanks for that - 3.5 Savage Species does indeed spell out "each hand used beyond the first adds 1/2 the wielder's strength bonus to the damage".  :>

That's 3.5 though. Pathfinder does have differences.

And if we follow that, could a Marilith (hypothetically) instead wield a long-spear with all 6 arms and thus gain 1.0 + (0.5 x 5) = x3.5 STR damage?

In any case, I'd simply love to see an actual Pathfinder Rule As Written that deals with this. If it simply doesn't exist, well, that would be good to know also.
GamerHandle
 member, 928 posts
 Umm.. yep.
 So, there's this door...
Fri 15 Jul 2016
at 18:01
Re: Pathfinder - Two Off Hands?
Actually - that IS a rule in 3.5/Savage Species.

Adding MORE Arms onto an APPROPRIATELY modified weapon (they made a whole range of weapons that handled this exact concept) added +.5 to strength each time.

There was even a spell "Girralon's blessing" (sp?) which "fused" one's arms on each side together, and you gained strength for the number of sets fused.
Skald
 moderator, 720 posts
 Whatever it is,
 I'm against it
Sat 16 Jul 2016
at 06:08
Re: Pathfinder - Two Off Hands?
Wot 'e said.  :>

The 3.5 Savage Species rules (p42 under Three Or More Hands heading if anyone is looking for it) go on to specify light weapon can't be designed for more than two, one handed weapons can already be used for two and can be designed for use with four hands, and two handed weapons can be designed for up to eight hands.  Cost is just cost of Masterwork weapon (plus they note you get the benefits of Masterwork too).

If Pathfinder doesn't have a specific or even general rule that contradicts 3.5, I'd be sticking with 3.5 in the absence of any definitive ruling.   Pathfinder is often lovingly referred to as D&D 3.75, after all. <grins>