Multiweapon Defense

[amazingshafeman]

Is Multiweapon Defense a legitimate feat already printed in some d20 source? If so, which one?

If not, since Two-weapon Defense gives a +1 shield bonus when not taking the extra attack, wouldn't it make since for Mutli-weapon Defense to give a +1 shield bonus for each arm not making the extra attack, since Multi-weapon Fighting is just a feat that replaces Two-Weapon Fighting for creatures with more than two arms?

Thanks for your help.

 

[Zandel]

I've got most source books and haven't seen it before but feel free to make it up yourself and post it in house rules... I'd be interested to see what your final feat looks like.

 

[amazingshafeman]

Unfortunately, it depends on which campaign it gets passed for. If it were for the campaign I'm running, it would indeed be a +1 for each extra attack you forego, or a +2 while fighting defensively. So, for example, a thri-kreen could make its primary attack, but defend itself with the other three arms for a +3 shield bonus, or +6 defensively... Unfortunately, it's a useless rule in that campaign, as there are no characters with more than two arms...

However, the DM in the campaign it applies to is most likely to rule no and only make the feat the exact same as Two Weapon Defense, allowing only a +1 bonus (+2 fd) instead. That ruling is annoying because his explanation is that the thri-kreen is already too powerful. What he's overlooking is that said thri-kreen couldn't pick up the feat until level 3, giving him an ECL of 6, at which point his miniscule natural armor of +3 will be a far greater hindrance than the ability to attack four times in a round with a +3 BAB (character is a cleric).

I suppose the best route to take is to test it in my own campaign. Pit the characters against a duo of thri-kreen combatants. One has the feat as TWD, the other has it as the enhanced MWD.... At least that way there's an attempt at playtesting...

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

You do realize that you've read the initial feat incorrectly, right?

TWO-WEAPON DEFENSE [GENERAL]
Prerequisites: Dex 15, Two-Weapon Fighting.
Benefit: When wielding a double weapon or two weapons (not including natural weapons or unarmed strikes), you gain a +1 shield bonus to your AC.

When you are fighting defensively or using the total defense action, this shield bonus increases to +2.

Special: A fighter may select Two-Weapon Defense as one of his fighter bonus feats.

There's nothing there about giving up attacks to get a bonus ...

 

[Kobold Stew]

oops. double post.

 

[Kobold Stew]

What he's overlooking is that said thri-kreen couldn't pick up the feat until level 3, giving him an ECL of 6, at which point his miniscule natural armor of +3 will be a far greater hindrance than the ability to attack four times in a round with a +3 BAB (character is a cleric).

I suspect he's not overlooking it at all. You're proposing a feat that is significantly better than two-weapon defense, which the character could also benefit from. The solution would be to make the feat part of a chain, requiring both Multiattack and TWD (with TWF behind it).

That's a lot of feats, I know, but when you consider the benefit to be gained (+6 when fighting defensively is not meagre at all; granting more than any other feat in the SRD), it might then be balanced.

I'd also insist on a minimum of +11 BAB (a benchmark established at the top of some other combat chains as well).

Remember, you shouldn't be making a feat to benefit a single character: it should make sense for the whole race/class under certain circumstances. In this case, the fact that the character is a cleric should mean he's not as good as a fighter at blocking attacks with all his arms.

 

[amazingshafeman]

I suspect he's not overlooking it at all. You're proposing a feat that is significantly better than two-weapon defense, which the character could also benefit from. The solution would be to make the feat part of a chain, requiring both Multiattack and TWD (with TWF behind it). That's a lot of feats, I know, but when you consider the benefit to be gained (+6 when fighting defensively is not meagre at all; granting more than any other feat in the SRD), it might then be balanced.

I'd also insist on a minimum of +11 BAB (a benchmark established at the top of some other combat chains as well).

By that logic, a many-armed character could benefit from Two Weapon Fighting, and should, therefore, have to take TWF as a prereq for Mutliweapon Fighting. That isn't the case, though. Multiweapon, like Two Weapon only requires a high Dex (13 I believe).

Still, this ruling is more acceptable than simply saying, "it's the same as TW Defense." Ruling it as a simple replacement for TWD renders such a feat redundant and pointless.

As the 2nd level of a feat tree, though, I would hesitate to compare it to Greater Two Weapon Fighting (or even Greater Mutliweapon) which in effect gives a character 3 extra iterative attacks in a round. At most, I'd rule +9, which is parrallel to Improved MWF...

Remember, you shouldn't be making a feat to benefit a single character: it should make sense for the whole race/class under certain circumstances. In this case, the fact that the character is a cleric should mean he's not as good as a fighter at blocking attacks with all his arms.

Improved Shield Bash is just as effective as a feat for fighters as it is for clerics and the odd wizard or sorcerer that has gone that route. Fighting defensively also gives the same bonus regardless of class. Why would this feat, which I agree should make sense across the board, have a different effect based on class when no other feat does?

*Edited for clarity.

 

[Kobold Stew]

By that logic, a many-armed character could benefit from Two Weapon Fighting, and should, therefore, have to take TWF as a prereq for Mutliweapon Fighting.

<snip>

Still, this ruling is more acceptable than simply saying, "it's the same as TW Defense." Ruling it as a simple replacement for TWD renders such a feat redundant and pointless.

As the 2nd level of a feat tree, though, I would hesitate to compare it to Greater Two Weapon Fighting (or even Greater Mutliweapon) which in effect gives a character 3 extra iterative attacks in a round. At most, I'd rule +9, which is parrallel to Improved MWF...


<snip>

Why would this feat, which I agree should make sense across the board, have a different effect based on class when no other feat does?

Hi,

I've edited your post into three chunks, which I shall deal with.

1. I don't see the connection here. Is it not the case that a many-armed character could benefit from Two Weapon Fighting? Sure, Multiweapon is better, but it's not that there's no benefit. I don't think the "therefore" follows, but I take your point in any case.

2. + 9 then; my point was that a fighter should be able to get the fighting feat earlier than someone with a less solid BAB progression.

3. There are many feats with class restrictions (either explicit or implicit) or limitations (those depending on BAB progressions), and you've mentioned some. I think i am missing your point here.

In any case, I think we are on the same page: at the same level as Greater Multiweapon, on the tree as it were, with your innovation that you lose the attack when you take advantage of it (allowing good flexibility, but up to +6 AC) might work well enough.

Hope this helps,

Kobold Stew.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Actually, Multiweapon Fighting replaces TWF. It's no longer an option.

MULTIWEAPON FIGHTING [GENERAL]

Prerequisites: Dex 13, three or more hands.

Benefit: Penalties for fighting with multiple weapons are reduced by 2 with the primary hand and reduced by 6 with off hands.

Normal: A creature without this feat takes a –6 penalty on attacks made with its primary hand and a –10 penalty on attacks made with its off hands. (It has one primary hand, and all the others are off hands.) See Two-Weapon Fighting.

Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Actually, Multiweapon Fighting replaces TWF. It's no longer an option.

that explains it, then. sorry for my confusion: adjust point 1 comment above as appropriate, making humble obeisance to Patryn and amazingshafeman.