Off Hand Parry vs. Two Weapon Defense

[Lord Pendragon]

I know he's exploiting the wording.

For what it's worth, I don't think Pax is exploiting things any more than they were intended to be exploited. The template grants +4 arms, so he can use +4 arms. *shrug*

 

[kreynolds]

Insects have 6 limbs.

Yup...and an ogre has four...but he ends up with eight. 4 + 4 = 8. That may or may not be the intent, but there it is.

 

[Pax]

Ridiculement, Nice, very mature.

I beg to differ. My post may not have been nice and tea-party-polite, but it was hardly laced with ridicule. If you feel ridiculed, I would suggest it is perhaps more because you recognise your own error, than that I have acted to ridicule you.

One thing about Insects and crustaceans. They are very different. Evolutionary, physically, etc.

First of all, "Arthropods" include spiders, insects, lobsters, crabs, lice, fleas, etc. In fact, as far as I can tell, the primary difference between a marine arthropod, a.k.a. a crustacean, and "insects", is, wether or not they live in the ocean.

This site has a nice little chart on the relationship between (for example) lobsters and insects, vs insects and spiders.

While they are, of course, not the same thing -- it is clearly not so different as you would have us believe. And, though this may come as a surprise to you, insects and crustaceans are very closely related to each other, as well as sharing many physiological and structural similarities.

Insects have 6 limbs. Period.

Not quite accurate; insects have six LEGS (beign a part of the group hexapoda). A limb can inclide manipulators. Humans have four LIMBS, but only two legs, and two arms.

Crustaceans are not subject to this rule. If you want to be purely sematical and exploit every way this is worded you can go on base physics. Insects have 6 limbs. No if's and's or but's about it. The Insectile ogre in the pic has 6 limbs in clear conjunction with the order of Insect.

Define limb. Many insects have structures around their mouths that look and act like miniature arms. Then there are the feelers/antennae. Not to mention wings.

I know he's exploiting the wording. I'm willing to bet good money he knows too he's exploiting the wording. I mean hell two levels behind, for an additional 4 attacks, granted at an extream modifier. But by the time you're epic level with perfect multi weapon fighting thats 24 attacks, to the figher with 2 arms 8.

What, following the rules as written instead of staring vacantly at the pretty pictures (ALERT now I'm ridiculing you!), is now "exploiting the words" ... ?

If you also want to start quoting words pax. Despite having 6 arms the insectile create gains no additional attacks.

Thats a no additional attacks. Not no additional nautral attacks, or weapon based attacks. a clear cut no.

No additional attacks means only that; the presence or absence of those arms has no affect on teh creature's number of attacks. I.e., an Insectile Tiger doesn't gain four more claw attacks. And insectile Vampire doesn't gain four mroe slam attacks.

Nothing says you cannot expend the requisite feats to successfully and efficiently wield weaponry in each and every one of those arms. If they had intended that meaning to be conveyed, they would have used wording similar to that of the Fang of Llolth prestige class, which does say the extra limbs cannot wield weapons (though, with the Opposable weapon enhancement in Masters of the Wild, even that limitation can be overcome).

You are correct under the wording here a human, now has 6 arms. However under the wording, precisely it means those 4 additional arms don't help his attacks per round at all.

Right. His intelligent choice of TACTICS, and/or selection of feats, however, may enable him to do so. Ergo, use of the Multiweapon Fighting rules.

Nothing in the Insectile template says which arm must be used to wield a weapon; nothing in the template says the extra arms are incapable of fine manipulation, even to that needed to wield a weapon, cast a spell, etc.

If you want to go by the wording exactly, you can't pick or choose which statments you want to follow.

I have. Unlike you, I'm also not reading more than is there. Since you are ... hmm, maybe that explains why you tend to stick to looking at the pictures, hmm? (and yes, that's also intentional ridicule -- IMO, you've earned it, and then some!).

Use the rules as written. Use ONLY the rules. Use nothing more, and nothing less, than what is published. IF you wish to argue that the Insectile template should have had a higher Level Adjustment (an argument, frankly, which I would agree with) ... go ahead.

I personally think it should have been a +3, maybe a +4. If I allowed it IMC at all, I'd set it at one or the other, in fact.

But that doesn't affect how many arms the insectile creature has, nor does it prevent them from expending the feats neccessary to wield that many weapons at once.

FWIW, the insectile kobold duellist didn't fare very well; he simply became the target of disarm and sunder attempts. Strip the swords away, and his AC plummets ...

Or, just drop some area-effect spells on him, ro such. No big deal.

 

[Camarath]

Also, you can't be an aquatic insectile chr so your squid won't work.
Climate: Never aquatic.

There are aquatic insects IRL, you know. Also the climate/terrain entry modifies the base creatures climate/terrain rather than excluding creatures based on climate/terrain. A creature's climate/terrain does not limit where a creature can exist it merely suggests where a creature could be typically found (rule quote page 7 3.5 MM "This describes a tendency, but is not exclusionary."). Has anyone played a Dwarf and did he ever leave the "Temperate mountains"?

Insects have 6 limbs. Period. Crustaceans are not subject to this rule. If you want to be purely sematical and exploit every way this is worded you can go on base physics. Insects have 6 limbs. No if's and's or but's about it. The Insectile ogre in the pic has 6 limbs in clear conjunction with the order of Insect.

The creature is Insectile (being or suggestive of an insect) not a strict insect creature. Also the ogre in the picture is not completly represented, the lower portion of it body is obscured, so it might have an additional 2 legs that we can not see.

So do we belive that insectile chrs are +2ecl for
4 dex, 2 wis, 4 additional arms, tremorsense 60, climb, 2 natural ac, no flanking, +4 spot checks, darkvision.
Which according to Pax, we get. I know he's exploiting the wording. I'm willing to bet good money he knows too he's exploiting the wording.

What are we suppose to go be if not the text? If something says it does something I say it should do what it says it does. I think "it gains four more arms" and "having six arms" is pretty clear that the creature would have six arms (if it had two to begin with).

 

[Lareit]

I want to mearly apolygize and yield.

 

[Darklone]

Ehm... If you wield two (or sixteen) defending weapons, I'd be inclined to say their bonus to AC does not stack

 

[Pax]

Ehm... If you wield two (or sixteen) defending weapons, I'd be inclined to say their bonus to AC does not stack

Except that'd be a direct change of the rules as published (obviously you're free to doso, but ...).

3.5 SRD:
Defending: A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the sword's enhancement bonus to his AC as a bonus that stacks with all others. As a free action, the wielder chooses how to allocate the weapon's enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon, and the effect to AC lasts until his next turn.
Moderate abjuration; CL 8th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, shield or shield of faith; Price +1 bonus.

Each defending weapon provides a bonus that stacks with all OTHER bonusses. If you go TWF, and have two defending weapons, ISTM the spirit of the rules is, you can suck the enhancement bonus form attack/damage to defense from both of them, and the two will stack with each other.

 

[Power_Munchkin]

hm

as a bonus that stacks with all others.

Exactly. With all *others*. As in "other bonuses", not the same ones the weapon provides.

At least that's how I read it. But hey, english is not my native tongue, so what do I know?

If what you're saying is true, then a PC with a +1 defending quartersaff at both ends could dump several greater magic weapon spells on it, get nifty AC bonuses from each end (which would stack according to you) and still have plusses to hit and damage.

 

[Pax]

Re: hm

Exactly. With all *others*. As in "other bonuses", not the same ones the weapon provides.

It's an unnamed bonus. Unnamed bonusses from different sources always stack anyway. The +5 AC from yoru magic dagger is not the same as the +5 AC from your magic Rapier or the +5 AC from your magic battle-axe, etc, etc.

If what you're saying is true, then a PC with a +1 defending quartersaff at both ends could dump several greater magic weapon spells on it, get nifty AC bonuses from each end (which would stack according to you) and still have plusses to hit and damage.

See, that's where I'd draw the line. IMC, the Defender characteristic cannot give you a stronger bonus to hit than the weapon's own innate enhancement bonus. And however much of the basic enhancement you take for defense, the benefits of GMW are reduced by the same amount.

IOW, I don't let GMW act as an end-run around the lowered to-hit and defense abilities of a Defender Weapon on full defense.

However, if someone bought a +3 Defender / +3 Defender double-weapon, and wanted to go with +6 armor class and +nothing to hit or damage, by reallocating BOTH ends ... I say, more power to them, then. A pair of GMW's that'dnormally give +5 would still only bring it back up to +2, under my rules (as described just above).

 

[Ranger REG]

Was OHP so powerful that they had to tone it down? And that badly?

Not powerful at all. It looks balanced but not appealing toward any two-weapon fighting specialist, especially those with ITWF and GTWF feats that offer additional off-hand attacks.

TWD allow some defensive benefit while allowing the specialist to use his off-hand attack(s). After all, two-weapon fighting technique is an offensive fighting style, to inflict as many damage as you can using two weapons if possible at the expense of defense (e.g., lack of shield).