UPDATE GOT BILL'S RESPONSE Paired Weapons and 6 armed Jeridu

[eliakon]

Maybe. That's not what it says though. It says 3 sets of paired weapons. Set one does a parry/attack that's cool. But the second and third set are different pairs, they are doing a different response. At least that's how I see it.

So what about the part that says they can use paired weapons for all 6 of their arms? If you say that you can only use it for 2 arms and the other 4 just kind sit there holding things but not doing anything that is not 3 sets of paired weapons being used by all 6 arms. Its one set of paired weapons and 4 things that just kinda look menacing.

that's not what I am saying. What I am saying is that you have 3 sets of paired weapons.
so 6 weapons, that can be used in any two weapon pairs you like.

That's your option. I am saying that I do not see that same wording as coming to that conclusion. I am saying that I see it as...three sets of 2 not one set of 6. And yes there is a difference.

Wait are you now applying paired weapons to all three sets or only only 1? I'm not really clear here on how you stand.

You have three sets of paired weapons. you do NOT have one 'sextuple wield'

For each APM you use you can do one action.
You can
-Parry (one weapon)
-Attack (one weapon)
-Twin Attack (paired weapon)
-Parry/Attack (paired weapon)
-Simo Dual Attack (paired weapon)
The description, to me, does not allow for the Jeridu to do anything more than the rules already allow for paired weapons. It simply lets you have six weapons, and use any two of them as pairs. Which is pretty impressive all by its self. But I don't see it as allowing you to make 6 action per APM.

Thats back to one set of paired weapons and 4 mean looking but useless things dangling there. Not impressive at all really.

Not really. Lets look at it
Mr Average Jedidu
he has 5-8 APM at first level.
he is wielding say, two swords, two knives, a shield, and a mace.

on EACH of his APM he can for instance make a dual attack.
So APM1 he dual attacks with two knives, APM 2 he dual attacks with a knife and sword, APM 3 he decides to do a mace/sword combo...still only paired weapon, but he can use all 6 interchangeably. He is also in a swirling melee, so with 3 sets of paired weapons he can parry up to 6 attackers (his friend can only parry 2). If he wants to parry/attack he can do so, again with any two weapons he wants.

[Thinyser]

Maybe. That's not what it says though. It says 3 sets of paired weapons. Set one does a parry/attack that's cool. But the second and third set are different pairs, they are doing a different response. At least that's how I see it.

So what about the part that says they can use paired weapons for all 6 of their arms? If you say that you can only use it for 2 arms and the other 4 just kind sit there holding things but not doing anything that is not 3 sets of paired weapons being used by all 6 arms. Its one set of paired weapons and 4 things that just kinda look menacing.

that's not what I am saying. What I am saying is that you have 3 sets of paired weapons.
so 6 weapons, that can be used in any two weapon pairs you like.

That's your option. I am saying that I do not see that same wording as coming to that conclusion. I am saying that I see it as...three sets of 2 not one set of 6. And yes there is a difference.

Wait are you now applying paired weapons to all three sets or only only 1? I'm not really clear here on how you stand.

You have three sets of paired weapons. you do NOT have one 'sextuple wield'

For each APM you use you can do one action.
You can
-Parry (one weapon)
-Attack (one weapon)
-Twin Attack (paired weapon)
-Parry/Attack (paired weapon)
-Simo Dual Attack (paired weapon)
The description, to me, does not allow for the Jeridu to do anything more than the rules already allow for paired weapons. It simply lets you have six weapons, and use any two of them as pairs. Which is pretty impressive all by its self. But I don't see it as allowing you to make 6 action per APM.

Thats back to one set of paired weapons and 4 mean looking but useless things dangling there. Not impressive at all really.

Not really. Lets look at it
Mr Average Jedidu
he has 5-8 APM at first level.
he is wielding say, two swords, two knives, a shield, and a mace.

on EACH of his APM he can for instance make a dual attack.
So APM1 he dual attacks with two knives, APM 2 he dual attacks with a knife and sword, APM 3 he decides to do a mace/sword combo...still only paired weapon, but he can use all 6 interchangeably. He is also in a swirling melee, so with 3 sets of paired weapons he can parry up to 6 attackers (his friend can only parry 2). If he wants to parry/attack he can do so, again with any two weapons he wants.

So how is using only 2 arms at at time using all your 6 arms "equally well and simultaneously" or using 3 sets of paired weapons at once? See using 1 set at a time and dangling the other 2 sets does not jive with using 3 sets at once or using all arms equally well AND simultaneously. The only benefit is that it doesn't cost them an action to switch weapons from say your 2 knives to 2 swords to mace and shield. Which I suppose could be a slight benefit in certain circumstances, but only slight. But if you are using only one set at a time then you are not using "all your arms equally well and simultaneously" or "acting as if you control three sets of paired weapons at once". You're acting like you have 2 good arms at a time and the other 4 go dumb for that action. Which is not how these beings are described at all.

Also the "parry 6 attacks at once" is something that you could ONLY do if using 3 sets of paired weapons at once. So this does not fit with how you are saying you want to run the attack side of paired weapons. "Parrying 2 attacks at once" is something only paired weapons can do, so to multiply this aspect of paired weapons by 3 for the 6 armed Jeridu but to not extend the same multiplication to the twin attack or parry/simul aspect of paired weapons is incongruous.

[Tor]

Hey Prysus I think I realized why I had that false conception about combination strike/parry in Paired WP.

If you check out N&SS the combination attacks (strike/parry and parry/strike and some other stuff) all explicitly say it removes the automatic parry.

I was probably getting that mixed up with the similar paired WP tactic, but clearly paired WP is better in yet another way. The way I was already aware of being that it can use bonuses.

Man those maneuvers really suck...

seems the nerfin posse has swarmed your post. Any who six arms equals six actions per attack.

Do you mean 6 attacks per action?

Any one saying different is just a nerfherder trying to herd you into nerftopia for some un fun psuedo rules lawyer craptastic gaming. True story.

By saying 'pseudo rules lawyer' are you saying that someone is not actually a rules-lawyer?

Do you mean that they are not lawyering? Or that what they are lawyering is not rules?

One thing Say... surely a term more specific than 'nerf' should be needed. After all, the Xiticix were boosted in Invasion from their lowly RMB selves and I'm not proposing we change that or nerf them.

I think one could divide the concept into monster-nerfing and PC-nerfing.

nerfherder trying to herd you into nerftopia for some un fun psuedo rules lawyer craptastic gaming

No need to insult all those who have differing views there.

Wait... which part is the insult? Herder? Lawyer? Those sound like admirable professions necessary for a stable and progressive society. Without them, where would our shepherds and judges come from? Our cowboys and prosecutors?

can use them all equally well and simultaneously
Paired Weapons
can use it for all six of their arms
basically acts like he can control three sets of paired weapons at once

Not exactly. It just says that you have three sets of paired weapons. So, logically that would mean that you can use one of those three pairs to do a pary/simul. the other pairs are not a part of this.

It does say 3 sets of paired weapons at once. The key being "at once". Not one set at a time, not in succession but at once meaning all at the same time, or in concert.

The verbs used in the text which you have quoted are "use" and "control". This does not necessarily mean "strike". So we have not been told that they can STRIKE with all of them at once.

If you have 3 warriors that all have paired weapons and they all attack on the same initiative then you have 3 sets of paired weapons working at once. Jeridu are like 3 warriors all using paired weapons that always get the same initiative and since its not 3 separate minds they can internally coordinate attacks.

3 warriors need to spend 3 attacks to launch 6 hits. Why should I think the Jeridu only need to spend 1?

the statements that they can use all their hands "equally well and simultaneously" and...

To interject at this point, why do you keep quoting the 'equally well' part?

That part is completely unrelated and simply refers to a lack of favored handedness, which has no effect on the amount of attacks one can deliver. The key term of discussion here is 'simultaneously' so I would quote this as "can use them all .. simultaneously". The 'equally well' part is not necessary to quote and is distracting and cluttersome.

that they get paired weapons "and can use it for all 6 of their arms" and
that they "act like he can control three sets of paired weapons at once"
means they can use all 6 arms at the same time to attack

Xiticix Super-Warriors aren't even listed as being able to do this, and their combat abilities exceed the Jeridu due to their superior insect senses.

Someone in this thread said something along the lines as to, if Jeridu did a simultaneous attack + parry, if they could use 1 arm to parry and 5 arms to counter-attack.

The Xiticix Super-Warrior is only capable of simultaneously attacking with TWO arms (they have six) and even while using the 4 other arms to parry, they still do it with penalties.

These guys are BETTER than all the other 6-armed guys out there. This is explicitly not something other 6-armed creatures are capable of doing. It is only their insect senses that allows them to do it.

Meaning the Jeridu, if they wanted to simultaneously attack with more than 1 arm, means they would still forfeit the ability to parry, as is standard with twin-striking. They can't attack with 2 (or more) limbs and still parry, the ability to do that (at penalty) is only possessed by Xiticix Warriors (no bonuses, may also apply to Hunter-class Xiticix) and Super-Warriors (half bonuses).

InvasionPg70 clearly tells us most characters (even those with 4+ limbs) can't do this kind of simultaneous attacking. That it is extra limbs "combined with its multiple eyes, antennae senses and insect-like brain" which gives the ability.

Jeridu don't have multiple eyes, don't have antennae, and don't have an insect-like brain. They lack the 3 things you need in addition to extra limbs to be able to do these techniques.

Xiticix who lose their antennae can't do this. If they're cut off, they can only (even if they still have 4 or 6 arms) do the normal twin-striking or parry + 1 simulHit techniques that paired weapons allow.

Jeridu can never do it, their brains can't manage the work. Even though they're naturally born with their limbs, they lack that insect-like efficiency that allows these maneuvers.

what about the part that says they can use paired weapons for all 6 of their arms?

This basically means "you're not limited to 1 set of limbs".

This probably means that for other guys with 4 arms (let's say, our friendly neighbourhood necromancer) who select paired WP as a skill, they only get it with their dominant set of arms, which in the case of the necromancer would be the pair he started off with, meaning he couldn't use it for the extra limbs he attaches.

If you say that you can only use it for 2 arms and the other 4 just kind sit there holding things but not doing anything that is not 3 sets of paired weapons being used by all 6 arms. Its one set of paired weapons and 4 things that just kinda look menacing.

Not exactly, it's 2 spare pairs at the ready, full capable to fill in if the pair maneuvering is put out of commission or becomes non-favorable.

Let's say Mr. Jeridu is holding paired daggers, paired short-staffs and paired longswords. He might opt to strike (or simultaneously strike while parrying) with his swords against a prime opponent, but opt to use the daggers to parry other opponents, since daggers give better parrying bonuses. He might also keep his staffs at the ready to parry anyone who tries to throw a net at him, or if he doesn't want to draw blood.

Thats back to one set of paired weapons and 4 mean looking but useless things dangling there. Not impressive at all really.

If we look a robots with multiple weapons, those other weapons are not 'useless' just because they're not being used in a given combat action. It is plausible to encounter a specific favored use of a weapon in the same melee round. Staffs to parry nets, daggers or shields to parry other stuff, high-damage weapons to attack with, etc.

If we look at the illustrations, the Jeridu seem to be mostly in defensive stances. Is there even a picture showing them attacking with more than 2 weapons at once? Fuel our imaginations.

He is also in a swirling melee, so with 3 sets of paired weapons he can parry up to 6 attackers (his friend can only parry 2).

Wait, hold on a sec, where does this come from? Besides I thought you could parry up to 3 opponents and it's only the 4th man behind you who got the free shot. Isn't melee combat on a flat plane between equal-sized opponents usually limited to 4 on 1?

Obviously with ranged combat, attacks from above, or a bunch of tiny things attacking something giant, it'd be different...

So how is using only 2 arms at at time using all your 6 arms "equally well and simultaneously" or using 3 sets of paired weapons at once?

You're using them "equally well" because you're not bad with some arms.

You're using them simultaneously and at once because you're holding them all and lugging them all around during combat, which is pretty hard. Attacking with a weapon is not the only way to use a weapon.

using 1 set at a time and dangling the other 2 sets does not jive with using 3 sets at once or using all arms equally well AND simultaneously

LOL dat "and"

Your "equally well" thing has to go Thiny. Seriously look at it on its own here. "They use them equally well" means Jeridu aren't left-handed, that's it. What else do you think it could mean?

The only benefit is that it doesn't cost them an action to switch weapons from say your 2 knives to 2 swords to mace and shield.

Switching weapons can sometimes take more than one action, and in normal circumstances if you ditch a weapon to grab a new one, that makes the weapon available to your opponent. Jeridu have options without having to give their opponents options.

if you are using only one set at a time then you are not using "all your arms equally well and simultaneously"

Yes you are, you have not established "simultaneously" to mean "in the same melee attack". Simultaneously can also mean "within the same melee round" and that's clearly what it means here since no ability to do a combined strike is given.

You're acting like you have 2 good arms at a time and the other 4 go dumb for that action.

I don't agree. If a human is punching opponent, does that mean the non-punching arm 'dumb'? Of course not, it stands on guard, ready to parry, ready to throw another strike.

"Parrying 2 attacks at once" is something only paired weapons can do, so to multiply this aspect of paired weapons by 3 for the 6 armed Jeridu but to not extend the same multiplication to the twin attack or parry/simul aspect of paired weapons is incongruous.

Actually parrying 2 attacks at once isn't something only paired weapons can do. A standard parry can block all 4 attacks from the Super-Warrior with 1 roll.

I'm really not even sure what the "parry 2 attacks" part of paired weapons is even supposed to mean.

Some have actually interpreted it to mean that your ability to parry multiple attacks is lessened (from 3 down to 2) rather than grown.

Dead Reign page 215 contradicts Xiticix Invasion in this regard, saying "the defender under attack can only try to parry one of the two weapons coming at him for his defensive parry. The other will strike unless he too is using two weapons, or a weapon and a shield, and has the WP Paired Weapons skill"

So I dunno whether to go with Rifts' "anybody can parry 4 attacks with 1 parry, no trouble" and DR's "you can't even parry 2" harshness when playing PF. I do sorta like DR's limit because it actually gives some context to PW's double-parry technique.

Although the "parry two different attackers" statement still makes zero sense to me. The only context I ever found where that can come into play is being attacked by PU1's "Toy Control" power or if a GM ruled that if you're attacked by 2 guys with same initiative, only 1 can be defended against.

Another way to give it context, though I think a lot of people would hate it (and it isn't supported by rules) is to take a "1 free parry per turn" stance on automatic parries. this is how roll with impact/hit works in N&SS. Then if you have paired WP you can increase that to "two free parries per turn" as a means of giving the "parry two attackers" statement some meaning. Otherwise, I have no idea how it is meant to function. By the rules, anybody can parry 2 attackers (or 100 of them) so what's it add?

The idea of a guy with 3 melee attacks (HtH assassin) being able to parry a million laser beams simultaneously launched at him in the start of a round seems dumb to me, so I think "1 free parry per turn" is a great house rule to incorporate. As is the application of the N&SS "1 free roll with impact per turn" as a universal thing. Additional parries or RWI should cost actions =) Unless of course you have 'automatic roll' from N&SS which gives unlimited RWI per term. Anywho, 'nuff 'bout them house rules.

[say652]

Personally I feel for this much of a debate.

"We must agree to disagree"
NMI.

[Thinyser]

Personally I feel for this much of a debate.

"We must agree to disagree"
NMI.

Agreed.

[say652]

I am a munchkin handlin GM, stronger characters fight tougher badguys. I also use my imagination and wing it. A lot. The only problem I see with these deathnados is..........nothing actually.
Since their sdc without supernatural strength add in a super or two to check em.

Magic weapons are metal. Magnetism.
Aps metal/stone/ice all take no damage from normal strength.
Invulnerable characters good luck with out a way to harm them.

These things popped in my head as I wrote this message given time to prepare.......well you wouldn't want that lol.

[Thinyser]

I am a munchkin handlin GM, stronger characters fight tougher badguys. I also use my imagination and wing it. A lot. The only problem I see with these deathnados is..........nothing actually.
Since their sdc without supernatural strength add in a super or two to check em.

Magic weapons are metal. Magnetism.
Aps metal/stone/ice all take no damage from normal strength.
Invulnerable characters good luck with out a way to harm them.

These things popped in my head as I wrote this message given time to prepare.......well you wouldn't want that lol.

Yes but in the setting they are in they are deadly (melee) warriors even as I run them (nerfed). Give them 6 attacks per action, as I believe the author intended, and they would be 3 times as deadly. They are weak against magic and/or psionics which unlike super powers are available aplenty in PF. With only a regular 3d6 for M.E. and P.E. the likelihood of them having high saves for both are relatively low. Stick them with CoA and/or Magic Net and pincushion them with arrows or other magic/psionics and they are dead quickly as they don't have any SDC except from skills and OCC and only P.E.+ 1d6/lvl for HP.

How easy they are to kill outside of melee is not what we were discussing though.

[say652]

I like the race almost made one for my heroes unlimited game. Then as usual my ADD set in, wound up in the vault looking at centaurs :/

I like the race but idk I guess in my brain I nerfed them as well, more than three strikes per attack costs the auto parry.
I use borgs, multi limb heroes quite a bit. So in my game four arms equals two strikes and an auto parry. But not every GM runs things the same.

[Thinyser]

I like the race almost made one for my heroes unlimited game. Then as usual my ADD set in, wound up in the vault looking at centaurs :/

I like the race but idk I guess in my brain I nerfed them as well, more than three strikes per attack costs the auto parry.
I use borgs, multi limb heroes quite a bit. So in my game four arms equals two strikes and an auto parry. But not every GM runs things the same.

I dont use the lose your auto parry rule, its ill conceived. Lets say a warrior who has one weapon attacks. He used all his available weapons (1) to attack and yet can use that same single weapon to auto parry 3 attacks (I assume single attacks and not delivered on the same initiative) from three separate adversaries (RUE p.342 says they can parry 3 adversaries (not attacks) and that the 4th one gets a "free shot").

Now say a more skilled warrior (who can dual wield using paired weapons) attacks using all his weapons (2) and now he cannot parry at all?!? He should at minimum get his "can parry 2 opponents at the same time" from paired weapons.

Take that to the next level and a Jeridu who can simultaneously use all 6 arms should be able to attack with all 6 on his turn then parry up to 6 (Possibly 18 if you disregard the "lose autoparry rule" completely and see that a single weapon in the hands of an average warrior can parry 3 attacks) of any incoming attacks from up to 3 adversaries. I do think that they would have difficult time defending themselves by parrying attacks coming in from all 360 degrees around them, even though it states they are "whirlwinds of killing power on the battlefield, able to keep multiple opponents at bay all by themselves." Though they do have autododge too so attacks from this 4th adversary could potentially be dodged w/o using an action assuming they know the attack is coming or can make a sure enough guess. I would let them try at least. They don't get much for autododge bonuses so its usually a straight die roll.

[Tor]

"We must agree to disagree" NMI.

"I don't agree to that!" Sergeant Principal Seymour Skinner

Here's someplace we can start agreeing again: I screwed up again. It only occurred to me after posting that since the 'can only parry 1' bit was in the skill section description of PW (not the combat section) that I ought to check the skill section of PF.

Turns out PF2nd has the same restriction as Dead Reign, those attacked with a dual strike can only parry both strikes (presumably at the expense of an action) if they have paired WP.

I just really think they ought to put that under the combat section too. I know I always check the combat section first, so it's real easy to forget this tidbit which only appears in the weapon skills' listing of PW.

This bit wasn't present in RMB or Nightbane (no paired WP skill in the WP section) or HU2 (that instead had notes about needing to buy it multiple times to cover different combos). RUE included it though on page 327's WP skill section (but not on page 346's combat section)

Also noticing something fabulous on the bottom left of that page, it tells us you can only simultaneously counter-attack if you still have actions left... not sure if this ever got brought to attention in an old argument I think I was having with Dog some time back about dodge-borrowing+simultaneous-attack-substituting

Of course none of those notes address the 'parry two different attackers' weirdness. Presented like a new ability, but really seems like a limitation.

RUEp327 top-right "When fighting 3 attackers, the character would be able to try to parry two of the attackers, but any other attacks would be unopposed" compare to RUEp342 bottom-right "one can try to parry incoming attacks from as many as three adversaries" and the impression I get is "if you're holding 2 weapons, you lose one of your automatic parries". But if it's a limitation, I don't know why it's presented as a "can" rather than a "can't".

If the limit should apply at all, I say the only reasonable way to use it would be if you use a simultaneous strike/parry. Saying "you can only automatically parry 1 additional opponent if you simul-strike-parry the first" seems reasonable enough. It actually creates a downside to using the technique so that people will weigh their options on whether or not they want to do it.

As it stands now, since you don't lose the ability to automatically parry unless you do a twin strike, everyone with paired weapon would use simultaneous counter-attacks (combined with parry) with paired WP, there's no tactical advantage to doing otherwise and nothing but upsides.

But if you lose one parry meaning you could only take on 2 guys instead of 3, that would create hesitation in larger battles.

their sdc without supernatural strength add in a super or two to check em.

And if someone casts superhuman strength on the Jeridu?

Magic weapons are metal. Magnetism.

They're able to wield 6 wooden clubs instead of 6 metal daggers... plus you can make stone daggers, plugging the flint-working skill in TMNT now. Metal rusts, flint knives are good forever.

Aps metal/stone/ice all take no damage from normal strength.

I don't think we're so much worried about what low-tier Jeridu can do as much as we are "what happens if someone gives that Jeridu 6 rune weapons".

Invulnerable characters good luck with out a way to harm them.

I think SNPS hurts them at 1/2 so you'd just have to enchant a Jeridu with SNPS. Not the rarest thing in the Megaverse.

[say652]

Technically a jeridu magic class can hurt an invulnerable character with hand to hand attacks. You know that. Lol.

As I said I was just spitting freestyle. Lemme get my rhyme book. Lol

[Prysus]

Greetings and Salutations. Before I start, I just want to go on the record of saying almost this entire post has nothing to do with the topic at hand (Jeridu and paired weapons). However, it does address some false statements about "simultaneously" being made, which is really a different issue all together (and only touch on "paired weapons" at the very end).

Spoiler:

We don't fact-check what we think we know, that's why I'm glad to be corrected regarding false assumptions.

I'm more of the mindset to fact check (best I can) before I post, even when I feel confident in the answer. I've often caught mistakes before I post that way, or realized something I thought clear not as simple as I first thought. When I post, I typically have the book open to the page as I write (unless I'm writing from work, which is becoming more often, and I tend to try and declare as much).

Missing something I can accept. Flat out inaccuracy tends to bug me more, though I admit that's a personal peeve.

*JUp78 "a double blast (both weapons firing simultaneously) counts as two melee attacks" under the Laser and Particle Beam guns. If a pair of weapons is aimed at the same target simultaneously the strike counts as two melee attacks".

I missed that one, so the real reason I came to reply (though I'll touch a few more points as I go). Once again, this doesn't mean anything other than simultaneous as meaning at the same time. It counts as two attacks, which doesn't mean they fire separately.

Power Punch counts as two attacks. It doesn't mean you punch once, and the punch again.
Leap Kick (per RUE) counts as two attacks. It doesn't me you kick once, and then kick again.
Spells 6-10 (per RUE) count s two attacks. Doesn't mean you cast the spell once, and then cast it a second time.

Firing at two targets (with that specific weapon) counts as two attacks, that doesn't mean you fire once, then wait 'til next turn and fire again ... just like every other time you attack, making the section of the book totally pointless to state.

My claim is that paired weapons means you can perform twin strikes. A maximum of two. It doesn't allow more than that, not 3, not 6, no matter how many pairs you're wielding, because the skill does not describe those maneuvers.

Your claim actually goes to say that when it says "three sets of paired weapons at once" it only means you can hold six weapons and does NOT convey paired weapons. If you feel that's NOT what you're saying, I'll direct quote you this section ...

So just a different way to say 6 at once.

Being able to hold 6 things at once isn't the same as being able to attack with them all at once. Stage Magicians in HU can juggle a huge amount of thrown weapons but can't throw them simultaneously. They're still 'using' them though.

This is in regards to the quote "three sets of paired weapons at once." Your rebuttal is that Stage Magicians juggling is the same thing, which in this case is "paired weapons." You continue to argue that juggling or being able to "hold 6 things at once" is the same as "paired weapons." So if you're going to take that stance, you better well prove it.

Paired Weapons is a specific technique/ability within Palladium. It allows you to use two hands to perform specific techniques at once.
Three sets of paired weapons at once is three sets of two hands (6) hands to perform specific techniques at once.

If you want to make a case for paired weapons NOT meaning paired weapons, then prove "holding weapons" but not able to use them as paired weapons is the same thing.

I do not agree that you roll damage 'only once'. Sure, it does say "two pair 4d6" but that's only totalling things up, because it says that the damage is cumulative.

ALL damage is cumulative. If I hit you with a 2D6 staff this round, and hit you again next round, that's cumulative. They don't say they staff inflicts 4D6 and 6D6.

The Tentacles power tells you that they can attack "simultaneously" though, and how if "two pair" hit that it's "4D6."

The only way consecutive attacks work is if you ignore where it says "simultaneously" as well if two pair hit it's "4D6." As for the rest of the problems, I didn't say that the power wasn't flawed, merely that you're ignoring part of the book to try and make your case, a flawed endeavor. There's support that simultaneous means simultaneous, but you don't have support reverse (other than the power is incompletely written, but that's a separate issue).

Simply arguing that information is left out in other ways, so you can make up whatever rules you want is a bad argument.

It could mean "per melee attack" as well.

Seriously? You're arguing this? Thank you, this is making me feel a lot better after my strike/parry+autoparry slip.

"Melee" means "melee round", this is pretty common-sense knowledge I figure, but now I feel compelled to find a book example for you so as to convey how much chaos it would create if an unspecified 'melee' were interpretable as 'melee attack' instead.

Since PF is the central setting of discussion ...

Using PF for the discussion is a mistake, and the same mistake I made when I posted that. I could easily argue against the examples you provide however ...

I'm here for accuracy and honesty, not to be right (though the two tend to go hand in hand). Before posting I did check my PF2 main book (as that's my preferred setting as well as the source for the Jeridu). However, the source in question was from Rifts. Within the Rifts main book (both original and RUE) actually clarifies "Melee or Melee Round" as the same in the Combat Terms (this is NOT found in PF2).

As such I'll say I was wrong when I said "melee" could mean both. That does not make me wrong regarding simultaneous still meaning simultaneous (as I'll address in the next quote).

"Try fact checking" applies to both of us in this thread Prysus

JUp77 clearly says in the introduction (second paragraph, last sentence) "the computer with its two sets of weapons and eight attacks per melee".
JUp78 reiterates this under Weapon Systems 5 (Response Computer System) saying "Comptuer Attacks per Melee: Eight!".

So no, it does clearly say how often it can attack (8 times) and it could not possibly be 1 attack per round, unless 1 attack was all it took to annihilate a threat in which case I suppose it wouldn't keep going.

I did fact check. You're wrong. JU does state that ... for a different computer system. Showing how that computer system doesn't mean anything regarding the SLAS anymore than proving Xiticix being able to attack with four arms shows all multi-limbed characters can fight with all their arms. A different technology (or race) is a different technology (or race).

Trying to provide this as proof that a different computer system for a different robot/PA by a different company in a different book is the same is intellectually dishonest.

Note: If you'll notice, I have NOT argued that Xiticix being able to attack with multiple arms means Jeridu (or any other multi-limbed characters) can do the same. Tor, you mentioned how the language was different. All I've done is to show that it uses "Paired Weapons" to show use with multiple limbs, which counters your argument that "Paired Weapons" can only mean two for the Jeridu. The Xiticix do not prove the Jeridu can use multiple limbs, but it does prove that Palladium can use "Paired Weapons" to mean more than two limbs.

To engage the enemy presumably means to fire upon them, but this system spends 1 attack per shot.

At most, it can shoot twice in 1 go (spending 2 actions, like with a power punch). When that is done, it is only when they are trained on the same target.

So the system in no way indicates the ability to fire on multiple opponents at once. No, not even the coolness that can sometimes be done with leap attacks or paired weapons where you hit 2 opponents in attack, the RCS can't even do that spending 2 attacks, it has to use its actions in a normal sequence. It rolls its own initiative and everything.

Wow ... you're not even reading it anymore, are you? For clarity, this was in regards to CWC; page 136 Auto-Cannons of the Abolisher.

These Auto-Cannons are fired by gunners, not a computer system. Each gunner controls two cannons. The "Auto" aspect is a result of the "automatic, self-loading" aspect.

So three gunners can fire two cannons each (with each cannon being able to target a different direction), allowing all six to be fired "simultaneously" just like the book says.

The book also tells us that each cannon (not requiring them to be moved as a pair) have rotation, and it also tells us they can be fired at a minimum of 5 different targets (I'd guess 6, one for each cannon, but this is never specifically stated). One gunner can fire two cannons together, and the two cannons do NOT have to be targeting the same person. So when three gunners for two cannons each, does anyone want to guess at how many cannons that is simultaneously? If math isn't your strong suit, the answer is six. And if six cannons are all pointing in different directions and all fire at the same time, does anyone want to guess how many directions you're firing simultaneously? For those still bad at math, the answer is again six.

These quotes are not random, I chose them because they prove a particular point, that 'simultaneously' does not have a single fixed meaning, which is the impression I believe my opposition is attempting to convey.

It is not exclusively used to mean 'in the same instant' or 'in the same action' but it can also mean 'within the same melee round' or possibly other brief periods of time.

Except you haven't shown that. You've provided book quotes which show simultaneous able to mean "in the same instant" or "in the same action" and then tried to change the meaning.

I call them "random" because none of them have proved what you're trying to claim. It could only seem that way if people don't own the books or bother to check the facts for themselves.

-----

Of course, none of this "simultaneously" talk is even relevant to the topic of the Jeridu. Funny, huh? The only time the book mentions Jeridu and "simultaneously" is in a section talking about their coordination, and how that applies to skills such as Juggling and Pick Pockets. It is NOT used regarding paired weapons. So I'll agree this really shouldn't continue being brought up (as it has little bearing on the topic).

However, their Natural Ability (in that section) of "Paired Weapons" (heading of a specific Jeridu natural ability) does say "When using weapons in every arm, the Jeridu basically acts like he can control three sets of paired weapons at once."

So they tell us "using weapons in every arm" (6 arms) and then give us the mechanic "three sets of paired weapons at once" would mean paired weapons (x3) at once (at the same time). The only way it means what you're claiming is if you can show proof of Palladium using "paired weapons" to mean "holding two (or more) weapons but unable to use the techniques of paired weapons because this isn't paired weapons even though we're calling it paired weapons when it's really not."

You haven't done that. And if you try, I hope you give better examples than you did with "simultaneously" where you just ignored what the book said to make your claim.

Farewell and safe journeys to all.

[Damian Magecraft]

I like the race almost made one for my heroes unlimited game. Then as usual my ADD set in, wound up in the vault looking at centaurs :/

I like the race but idk I guess in my brain I nerfed them as well, more than three strikes per attack costs the auto parry.
I use borgs, multi limb heroes quite a bit. So in my game four arms equals two strikes and an auto parry. But not every GM runs things the same.

I dont use the lose your auto parry rule, its ill conceived. Lets say a warrior who has one weapon attacks. He used all his available weapons (1) to attack and yet can use that same single weapon to auto parry 3 attacks (I assume single attacks and not delivered on the same initiative) from three separate adversaries (RUE p.342 says they can parry 3 adversaries (not attacks) and that the 4th one gets a "free shot").

Now say a more skilled warrior (who can dual wield using paired weapons) attacks using all his weapons (2) and now he cannot parry at all?!? He should at minimum get his "can parry 2 opponents at the same time" from paired weapons.

Take that to the next level and a Jeridu who can simultaneously use all 6 arms should be able to attack with all 6 on his turn then parry up to 6 (Possibly 18 if you disregard the "lose autoparry rule" completely and see that a single weapon in the hands of an average warrior can parry 3 attacks) of any incoming attacks from up to 3 adversaries. I do think that they would have difficult time defending themselves by parrying attacks coming in from all 360 degrees around them, even though it states they are "whirlwinds of killing power on the battlefield, able to keep multiple opponents at bay all by themselves." Though they do have autododge too so attacks from this 4th adversary could potentially be dodged w/o using an action assuming they know the attack is coming or can make a sure enough guess. I would let them try at least. They don't get much for autododge bonuses so its usually a straight die roll.

Dex bonuses do apply to auto-dodge.
the fact that they have Auto-dodge does offset the lose auto-parry aspect of the multi-weapon attack.
Also of note on the multi-weapon attack: The way the skill reads (to me anyway) is there is but one strike roll made. It is an all or nothing strike which follows in line with much of the systems design (pass/fail skills, spells devastate or save for no effect, etc...).

[Thinyser]

I like the race almost made one for my heroes unlimited game. Then as usual my ADD set in, wound up in the vault looking at centaurs :/

I like the race but idk I guess in my brain I nerfed them as well, more than three strikes per attack costs the auto parry.
I use borgs, multi limb heroes quite a bit. So in my game four arms equals two strikes and an auto parry. But not every GM runs things the same.

I dont use the lose your auto parry rule, its ill conceived. Lets say a warrior who has one weapon attacks. He used all his available weapons (1) to attack and yet can use that same single weapon to auto parry 3 attacks (I assume single attacks and not delivered on the same initiative) from three separate adversaries (RUE p.342 says they can parry 3 adversaries (not attacks) and that the 4th one gets a "free shot").

Now say a more skilled warrior (who can dual wield using paired weapons) attacks using all his weapons (2) and now he cannot parry at all?!? He should at minimum get his "can parry 2 opponents at the same time" from paired weapons.

Take that to the next level and a Jeridu who can simultaneously use all 6 arms should be able to attack with all 6 on his turn then parry up to 6 (Possibly 18 if you disregard the "lose autoparry rule" completely and see that a single weapon in the hands of an average warrior can parry 3 attacks) of any incoming attacks from up to 3 adversaries. I do think that they would have difficult time defending themselves by parrying attacks coming in from all 360 degrees around them, even though it states they are "whirlwinds of killing power on the battlefield, able to keep multiple opponents at bay all by themselves." Though they do have autododge too so attacks from this 4th adversary could potentially be dodged w/o using an action assuming they know the attack is coming or can make a sure enough guess. I would let them try at least. They don't get much for autododge bonuses so its usually a straight die roll.

Dex bonuses do apply to auto-dodge.
the fact that they have Auto-dodge does offset the lose auto-parry aspect of the multi-weapon attack.
Also of note on the multi-weapon attack: The way the skill reads (to me anyway) is there is but one strike roll made. It is an all or nothing strike which follows in line with much of the systems design (pass/fail skills, spells devastate or save for no effect, etc...).

Is there a book and page # for the PP bonus applying to autododge?!??! Please tell me there is please please

Yeah its all or nothing for multi-arm strikes against a single target, attacking multiple targets each gets one strike roll even if you are attacking with multiple arms.

[Prysus]

Is there a book and page # for the PP bonus applying to autododge?!??! Please tell me there is please please

Greetings and Salutations. I do not believe any such note exists in PF2, mainly because they don't really include Auto-Dodge much. However, in other settings, you can find such a note usually in the Combat Terms. In RUE it's on page 344 (under Automatic Dodge) and in HU2 it's on page 67 (same place as RUE). Probably other books too, but those two were quick at hand. Hope that helps. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

[say652]

Page 67 of the heroes unlimited revised book.

[Thinyser]

Is there a book and page # for the PP bonus applying to autododge?!??! Please tell me there is please please

Greetings and Salutations. I do not believe any such note exists in PF2, mainly because they don't really include Auto-Dodge much. However, in other settings, you can find such a note usually in the Combat Terms. In RUE it's on page 344 (under Automatic Dodge) and in HU2 it's on page 67 (same place as RUE). Probably other books too, but those two were quick at hand. Hope that helps. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

Sweet, I had always thought that it was only those few bonuses that specifically state they are a bonus to autododge (PP bonus makes sense but since it already applies to the regular dodge bonus I took it to mean it could only apply to that)

Thanks!

[Damian Magecraft]

Is there a book and page # for the PP bonus applying to autododge?!??! Please tell me there is please please

Greetings and Salutations. I do not believe any such note exists in PF2, mainly because they don't really include Auto-Dodge much. However, in other settings, you can find such a note usually in the Combat Terms. In RUE it's on page 344 (under Automatic Dodge) and in HU2 it's on page 67 (same place as RUE). Probably other books too, but those two were quick at hand. Hope that helps. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

Sweet, I had always thought that it was only those few bonuses that specifically state they are a bonus to autododge (PP bonus makes sense but since it already applies to the regular dodge bonus I took it to mean it could only apply to that)

Thanks!

Part of the confusion there is (IMO) the fact that the PP bonuses are listed as being to Strike/Parry/Dodge.
When it should just be a blanket bonus to "combat moves" (a blanket term covering most combat related bonuses).

[Prysus]

Greetings and Salutations. So as I.thought more about this a few more thoughts came to mind, and I think I know how I'd personally run it (if I ever allowed a Jeridu in my games).

1: Three sets being switched between still doesn't make sense. You can use it with all 6 arms, so the number of sets you could switch between would in theory be about 15 (if I did my quick math right). 15 is not the same as three.

2: Though mot stated, one could argue attacking with all three sets at once would cost 3 attacks (still one turn, just three attacks). While it says you can use all three at once, it does not say whether or not it costs one attack or more. We can guess, but it's never clearly stated.

So, if I were to run it, I think I'd say...

So you have three sets. Set 1, Set 2, and Set 3. Attacking with each set costs one attack (the reason for the bonus attacks). So you could, in theory, attack with all 6 arms at once. If you had 9 attacks per melee you could do this up to three times in a round (running through your attacks quickly, but devastating to opponents and overwhelming any possible defenses). This could even mean an enemy still has attacks left after the Jeridu burned through his.

On the other hand, the Jeridu could only use one set to attack, and hold the others back for defense. I'd rule (though not technically by the rules) the character could perform one dual, twin strike with one set, and still not lose auto-parry with the other sets. So the character can remain highly defensive. Another house rule would be the character can use more than one parry (up to two) on a single attack. Think of a movie where the guy parries a sword with two daggers crossed over each other. I'd either provide a parry bonus for the dual parry, or just let them roll twice (better increasing their odds to succeed). This could allow them to fight two or three opponents and still persevere with an overwhelming defense and still powerful attacks (a dual strike without a defense handicap is still pretty good) and lots of attacks per melee.

Anyways, just my thoughts. Not exactly by the book, but helps keep the power in check a bit while not nerfing too much. Farewell and safe journeys to all.

[Thinyser]

I like it.

[Tor]

Technically a jeridu magic class can hurt an invulnerable character with hand to hand attacks. You know that. Lol.

Do you mean if they learn Superhuman PS? Or is this some kind of 'creatures of magic' reference? If latter, I like it, Rifts Conversion classic.

almost this entire post has nothing to do with the topic at hand (Jeridu and paired weapons)
it does address some false statements about "simultaneously" being made, which is really a different issue all together

Seeing as how 'simultaneously' is part of the race's description and how we're interpreting the way PW works hinges on the word's interpretation, I'd say it's quite on-topic to discuss that.

I'm more of the mindset to fact check (best I can) before I post, even when I feel confident in the answer. I've often caught mistakes before I post that way, or realized something I thought clear not as simple as I first thought. When I post, I typically have the book open to the page as I write (unless I'm writing from work, which is becoming more often, and I tend to try and declare as much).

You only do that when you have some level of uncertainty about it. You're not going to be checking the book for obvious stuff like "100 sdc is 1 MD". I check stuff I'm uncertain about too. I wasn't uncertain at all about this until I encountered your contrary certainty, which then led me to check.

doesn't mean anything other than simultaneous as meaning at the same time. It counts as two attacks, which doesn't mean they fire separately.

Power Punch counts as two attacks. It doesn't mean you punch once, and the punch again.
Leap Kick (per RUE) counts as two attacks. It doesn't me you kick once, and then kick again.
Spells 6-10 (per RUE) count s two attacks. Doesn't mean you cast the spell once, and then cast it a second time.

Firing at two targets (with that specific weapon) counts as two attacks, that doesn't mean you fire once, then wait 'til next turn and fire again

All good points.

However what I brought up my examples for, and what your examples are also good for illustrating, is cost and timing.

The idea I perceive being presented in this thread is that a Jeridu can spend 1 action and hit 6 times.

What I'm countering is not so much the idea that a Jeridu can land 6 hits at once, but moreso that it will cost 1 action. Also I don't believe in the 6-at-once either because we aren't told they can stike/hit all at once, just use, which could apply to other stuff.

In the issue of cost, to use spells as an example, the extra action is spent and the choice doesn't occur until that 2nd action. This may or may not be the case for power punches, never been very clear about that... figured it could be a swing/recover or windup/swing for power-punching... I feel like an FAQ somewhere cleared this up but can't remember which way... anyone?

... just like every other time you attack, making the section of the book totally pointless to state.

Wrong, the section serves to show that simultaneous doesn't mean 'costs 1 attack'.

Your claim actually goes to say that when it says "three sets of paired weapons at once" it only means you can hold six weapons and does NOT convey paired weapons.

I don't think so, it's more like having three PWs at once doesn't really DO anything besides give you options. Sort of like if I simultaneously had three forms of energy expulsion super powers.

"control three sets of paired weapons at once" means that you can control 6 weapons, but controlling 6 weapons doesn't mean do anything you want with them, like being able to control them all to attack at once. A robot controls all their weapons at once too. Saying you can control multiple sets of paired weapons is just describing the weapons being paired off in couples, not referring to some redefining of the skill.

If you feel that's NOT what you're saying, I'll direct quote you this section ...

This is in regards to the quote "three sets of paired weapons at once." Your rebuttal is that Stage Magicians juggling is the same thing, which in this case is "paired weapons." You continue to argue that juggling or being able to "hold 6 things at once" is the same as "paired weapons." So if you're going to take that stance, you better well prove it.

I'm not saying they're the same, I'm saying they're similar (sharing a trait, but not sharing ALL traits) in that they both involve the simultaneous management of multiple objects.

Paired Weapons is a specific technique/ability within Palladium. It allows you to use two hands to perform specific techniques at once. Three sets of paired weapons at once is three sets of two hands (6) hands to perform specific techniques at once.

Techniques are not mentioned. We don't really know to how far an extent this actually works.

It might, for example, refer to the ability to do a twin strike with 1 pair of weapons, losing the automatic parry with THAT pair, but still retaining the automatic parry from the other two pairs.

I have no problem with giving them that, TBH, but that's a far cry from a septuple strike, which is going beyond the limits of what pairs do.

If you want to make a case for paired weapons NOT meaning paired weapons

I don't think I am, just that a trio of married couples is not the same as a 6-person polygamy.

prove "holding weapons" but not able to use them as paired weapons is the same thing.

They're still able to use them all as paired weapons. I view 'simultaneously' to be flexible enough to mean 'within the same melee round'. I'm rejecting the assumption it must mean 'during the same instant'. The JU usage of it allows for this.

They don't say they staff inflicts 4D6 and 6D6.

That's because consecutive staff hits use separate strike rolls which could mean 1 is critical and 1 isn't. That's the point I'm making here. You had said:

Since damage is only rolled once depending on the number that hits, this further shows it is indeed considered simultaneously

I am saying I reject your 'damage is only rolled once' assumption. They are just generalizing because obviously since you roll strikes separately for each pair, you would have critical hits applying to some pair's damage but not others. Unless you think that a critical for 1 pair means ALL pairs become critical?

The Tentacles power tells you that they can attack "simultaneously" though, and how if "two pair" hit that it's "4D6."

That is merely informing us of the total. It's actually 2d6+2d6 but it can be rolled as 4d6 the majority of the time since you'd only have to do distinctive rolls if one of the pair strikes were critical.

I am not saying that the tentacles strike consecutively, mind you, just that they strike separately, that damage would sometimes need to be rolled separately so you know which roll to double from the crit for a pair.

I didn't say that the power wasn't flawed, merely that you're ignoring part of the book to try and make your case, a flawed endeavor.

I don't understand which part of Tentacles I'm accused of being ignored.

I believe I was actually using it as an example where a simultaneous strike from multiple sources (tentacle pairs) might cost multiple melee actions.

It isn't clear whether a simultaneous strike from 4 (two pair) tentacles costs 1 action or 2 action, basically. They hit all at once, but how many actions must you spend to do that big simultaneous hit?

There's support that simultaneous means simultaneous, but you don't have support reverse (other than the power is incompletely written, but that's a separate issue).

You're arguing a straw man. I have never said anything contrary to "simultaneous means simultaneous". You saying stuff like this is annoying. I am also saying "simultaneous means simultaneous", but am presenting the idea that Palladium uses it to express rough simultaneity and not exact simultaneity.

They do not use it to mean the exact same instant (3 simultaneous pulses from a single gun barrel clearly show that) nor do they always mean the exact same melee attack (as a computer attacking multiple opponents using separate actions throughout a melee round shows).

Simply arguing that information is left out in other ways, so you can make up whatever rules you want is a bad argument.

Please specify what this refers to. I'm easily lost as to what you're directing criticism at when it is not adjacent to it.

Using PF for the discussion is a mistake, and the same mistake I made when I posted that.

It's an arbitrary choice, I'm confident if I looked I could find an example of melee=round in every single core book.

I could easily argue against the examples you provide however ...

The level 1 magic spells? Please do, interested in what you mean by this.

here for accuracy and honesty, not to be right (though the two tend to go hand in hand)

Indeed, by striving to be accurate and honest, we are pursuing being right, as opposed to looking right.

I did check my PF2 main book (as that's my preferred setting as well as the source for the Jeridu). However, the source in question was from Rifts. Within the Rifts main book (both original and RUE) actually clarifies "Melee or Melee Round" as the same in the Combat Terms (this is NOT found in PF2).

RUE should be applauded for being more forefront with the synonymy but the equality is still apparent within PF as I showed with the 2 spells. However, that is not well represented.

was wrong when I said "melee" could mean both. That does not make me wrong regarding simultaneous still meaning simultaneous (as I'll address in the next quote).

Indeed it doesn't, it simply demonstrates we share the same fallibility However, as I am not arguing "simultaneous does not mean simultaneous" I don't really like you arguing the opposite of this.

I will argue that Palladium does not mean perfect exact-instant simultaneity whenever they say the word though. If you gander at any triple-pulse weapons you can see that.

JU does state that ... for a different computer system. Showing how that computer system doesn't mean anything regarding the SLAS

I don't recall saying anything about JU'S statements about RCS meaning anything about SA2's statements about RCS. Instead they are 2 examples which I believe separately support the idea of 'simultaneously' being used in a "within the same melee round" context, not a "within the same melee attack" context (which is more common) or a "within the same instant" context (which is also more common).

anymore than proving Xiticix being able to attack with four arms shows all multi-limbed characters can fight with all their arms. A different technology (or race) is a different technology (or race).

I don't think I was arguing that either. Rather the opposite, I brought up statements showing that Xiticix are better than other mult-armed fighters.

Trying to provide this as proof that a different computer system for a different robot/PA by a different company in a different book is the same is intellectually dishonest.

It sure would be, if I was arguing that... but I don't recall connecting the computers, just mixing up a point of discusison. The JU example and the SA2 example were not used to interpret each other, they instead distinctly support the idea of flexible rough simultaneity by Palladium.

it uses "Paired Weapons" to show use with multiple limbs, which counters your argument that "Paired Weapons" can only mean two for the Jeridu.

This would be a valid observation if you were talking about page 72's "Four-Handed Paired Weapon Attack" given to the Super-Warrior.

The example you used however was page 70's 4-armed attack by the standard Warrior, which did not used paired. This is what you said:

since if we look at the section it's under "Two-Handed Paired Weapon Attack" to describe using four arms at the same time (including attacking with all four at the same time). This runs completely contrary to your arguement "Paired Weapons" only means two, since the example you gave shows Palladium using it to mean "four."

But this was wrong. Although the standard warrior can make (though they rarely do) a 4-armed attack like the Super-Warrior, this is not called a 4-armPW attack. It is only called that under the Super-Warrior's "4 arm" section.

So basically, you're right that an example contradicting my assumption exists in the book, but you were wrong about the part in the book where it existed, I found it on my own while disproving your example about it being under the THPWA section, since it's the title of the FHPWA section that contradicts my previous assumption.

Let's not overlook the Gettier Problem here

I still stand by this being a "special combat move" of the Xiticix though, something which needs to be thoroughly spelled out. I think it's also valid tonote that Pg72's FHPWA section

The Xiticix do not prove the Jeridu can use multiple limbs, but it does prove that Palladium can use "Paired Weapons" to mean more than two limbs.

I'll concede that point, but for the reason I found, not the one you allege

"it can train its other four cannons on two to four different targets simultaneously"
"it can engage the enemy from all sides simultaneously"

Nothing in the text that I can find suggesting the text, as written, doesn't mean simlutaneously just like the book says.

irrelevant reply with me forgetting which book we're talking about

this was in regards to CWC; page 136 Auto-Cannons of the Abolisher.

Blah, realized my mistake here, okay for a proper reply...

If one views "engage" as meaning "fire upon" then that wouldn't be true since it doesn't let you fire upon 4 targets in the same action, but it does let you do that within the same round. If 'engage' is more liberally meant to be another way of saying 'train on' or 'aim at' that'd be true though (supposing everyone is perfectly lined up in 90 degree angles, of course).

three gunners can fire two cannons each (with each cannon being able to target a different direction), allowing all six to be fired "simultaneously" just like the book says.

Why would multiple gunners controlling robot weapons be simultaneous? They each go on their own initiative turn.

One gunner can fire two cannons together, and the two cannons do NOT have to be targeting the same person.

Mkay that comment was about the JU system, retracted now that I know it's CWC system.

So when three gunners for two cannons each, does anyone want to guess at how many cannons that is simultaneously?

Gunners attack in the same portion/set of turns though, not the same term, they roll initiatives separately.

if six cannons are all pointing in different directions and all fire at the same time, does anyone want to guess how many directions you're firing simultaneously? For those still bad at math, the answer is again six.

Distinct gunners co-operatively piloting a robot do not act "simultaneously" in the same sense as you're promoting with the Jeridu though, they act each on their own initiative turn, using distinct consecutive melee actions to do it.

You've provided book quotes which show simultaneous able to mean "in the same instant" or "in the same action" and then tried to change the meaning.

Wrong, the Abolisher crew shoot in distinct actions (within the same 'set' of actions, like when everyone makes their first move, etc) and the Juicer system clearly happens in multiple parts. I notice a lack of addressing the whole 8 opponents simultaneously thing.

I call them "random" because none of them have proved what you're trying to claim.

Even if they failed to prove my point (and I think they succeed, even if this is not perceived) that would not make selection random, merely erroneous.

It could only seem that way if people don't own the books or bother to check the facts for themselves.

I invite people to check the anti-Juicer system quotes. As for the Abolisher, a robot crew each spends their own actions, it's not some simultaneous 'all in one instant' thing.

You say I provided an example of simultaneously meaning same-instant. Which example was that?

none of this "simultaneously" talk is even relevant to the topic of the Jeridu. Funny, huh?

It's funny how you fail to see the relevance.

The whole basis of the argument that Jeridu can do a sextuple hit hinges upon interpretation of simultaneously.

The only time the book mentions Jeridu and "simultaneously" is in a section talking about their coordination, and how that applies to skills such as Juggling and Pick Pockets. It is NOT used regarding paired weapons. So I'll agree this really shouldn't continue being brought up (as it has little bearing on the topic).

Huh...

Y.. you might have a point there. I in good faith assumed that the aspect quoted is relevant to combat abilities. I had thought about "context: climbing" type things but put the concern aside...

However, their Natural Ability (in that section) of "Paired Weapons" (heading of a specific Jeridu natural ability) does say "When using weapons in every arm, the Jeridu basically acts like he can control three sets of paired weapons at once."

"control" != "strike with"

Besides, "basically acts like" could be taken to mean a discussion of mere similarity.

they tell us "using weapons in every arm" (6 arms) and then give us the mechanic "three sets of paired weapons at once" would mean paired weapons (x3) at once (at the same time) The only way it means what you're claiming is if you can show proof of Palladium using "paired weapons" to mean "holding two (or more) weapons but unable to use the techniques of paired weapons because this isn't paired weapons even though we're calling it paired weapons when it's really not."

But the Jeridu IS able to use paired weapon techniques. Just not necessarily all in the same melee action. "At once" doesn't specifically mean "costs 1 action".

Even if one did interpret this to mean "strike with 6 weapons" (even though Xiticix Super-Hunters can't do this and they're top-tier) that wouldn't mean a 6-weapon strike would cost 1 attack. Perhaps it would cost 3 and you would have to wait 2 actions of doing nothing (and not blocking anything) to build up the attack. The mechanics aren't discussed, nor is the explicit ability.

hope you give better examples than you did with "simultaneously" where you just ignored what the book said to make your claim.

I gave 3 examples (SA2/JU/CWC), which one did I ignore something in? Are you sure not just getting mixed up because I mistakenly thought we were discussing the JU system?

[say652]

For my part of the rant. It says a punches and kicks from a magic power catergory character affect invulnerable heroes.

Igot paired weapons twice with Zhizhu soy spider ancient master can strike four times per his twelve attacks.best part I didnt even try to jump threw all the hoops, I finished the character checked tjis multi limbed thread, realized woot I got this.

Started my own thread and hopefully helped Thinyser find a new character. Lol

[Tor]

the fact that they have Auto-dodge does offset the lose auto-parry aspect of the multi-weapon attack.

Partially yeah, though parries tend to build up better bonuses than dodges, much less auto-dodges which are further bonus-challenged.

[justify]

there a book and page # for the PP bonus applying to autododge?

I do not believe any such note exists in PF2, mainly because they don't really include Auto-Dodge much. However, in other settings, you can find such a note usually in the Combat Terms. In RUE it's on page 344 (under Automatic Dodge) and in HU2 it's on page 67 (same place as RUE).

I think the "PP applies to auto" type stuff only shows up in books that give specific bonuses for auto-dodge (like RUE) or which tell us that 'dodge' bonuses do not apply to auto-dodges (like HU2).

I think this might mean that settings like Nightbane and PF uses the traditional (from RMB for Juicers and such) "auto dodge use all normal dodge bonus" treatment.

should just be a blanket bonus to "combat moves" (a blanket term covering most combat related bonuses).

That'd be awesome for disarming/entangling/throwing and stuff.

Three sets being switched between still doesn't make sense. You can use it with all 6 arms, so the number of sets you could switch between would in theory be about 15 (if I did my quick math right). 15 is not the same as three.

5+4+3+2+1=15 yup. But heck, that's just the possible hand+hand matchups. If one counts the different weapons each hand could hold, it racks up into a realm beyond math, and that's the real way PW work (it's dagger+axe not left+right which is why you need multiple selections in HU if you don't get it from HtH) so that's not really it. The 'three pairs' just means the pair-ups you could choose in a given moment, you could presumably change it each attack though.

2: Though mot stated, one could argue attacking with all three sets at once would cost 3 attacks (still one turn, just three attacks). While it says you can use all three at once, it does not say whether or not it costs one attack or more. We can guess, but it's never clearly stated.

I'd be okay with allowing it so long as there was a 2 action delay, sure.

Another house rule would be the character can use more than one parry (up to two) on a single attack. Think of a movie where the guy parries a sword with two daggers crossed over each other. I'd either provide a parry bonus for the dual parry, or just let them roll twice (better increasing their odds to succeed). This could allow them to fight two or three opponents and still persevere with an overwhelming defense and still powerful attacks (a dual strike without a defense handicap is still pretty good) and lots of attacks per melee.

All for this idea. How about something like double the natural roll (or perhaps the bonuses, probably not both) for every arm added into a parry combination.

That or limit the amount of automatic parries people can do per turn. I get the impression this is sorta done anyway with 3 normally or 2 with paired WP, maybe add 1 parry opponent option per arm beyond 2.

It says a punches and kicks from a magic power catergory character affect invulnerable heroes.

Am thinking they just meant mystic bestowed/weapons who transform to use their powers, but I like the idea of Doc Strange punches working too.

[say652]

I allow it. I find invulnerable characters to be unoriginal so yea I like the concept.

Belwar the invulnerable started getting lippy, and Selenius the mystic study slugs him. Bam. Smiling Belwar realizes his lip is bleeding, thats my kinda woman thinks.

[Tor]

Do gastropods even have lips?

[Thinyser]

Whoohoo! I got a PM from Bill Coffin a few moments ago. Here is a copy and paste of the text.

"Hi, Heath! First of all, a thousand apologies for my extremely overdue response. The way Facebook lists incoming messages, this one got kind of hidden away and I didn't realize it was even waiting for me until tonight!

The intent with the Jeridu was to have a humanoid with six arms, all of which could fight at once, attacking and/or parrying. They are walking whirlwinds of steel. Ever see the old movie Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger? Remember when that six-armed statue comes to life and holds off the entire crew? That's the inspiration. So to the folks who insist that Jeridu can only fight with one set of weapons and the other four are just on standby, the word from the author is that is NOT what I intended. I intended for these humanoids to be able to attack with all six hands each and every melee round. These are guys from the Land of the Damned, the super-tough part of the world, so they're meant to put even the hardest melee fighter through their paces."

So that's settled. Or not YMMV but that's what the author intended.

And here are a couple screen shots from my phone.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B47Nyj ... sp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B47Nyj ... sp=sharing

And I found a link to the sequence to which he refers to as his inspiration. It made me lol.
http://youtu.be/ROssbvtE41U?t=1m1s

[eliakon]

Well now we know what the author intended. (before editing of course). This doesn't change what was actually published mind you. But it does give a huge credence to those who want to run things that way.

[Thinyser]

Well now we know what the author intended. (before editing of course). This doesn't change what was actually published mind you. But it does give a huge credence to those who want to run things that way.

Which is funny since I always thought that the 6 attacks per action is what was intended (and believe that is what the RAW actually say) yet don't (and still won't) run it that way!

EDIT: I talked to one of my players about it this morning and he tried to talk me into running it as intended. His argument was that we could work it in over time.

I told him no way.

[Alrik Vas]

I'm okay with giant evil monsters doing 6 attacks per action. I'm okay with a player being one of these as well...not like they'd make it far in society, but hey, you've got 6 attacks per action, just murder the town!

[Thinyser]

I'm okay with giant evil monsters doing 6 attacks per action. I'm okay with a player being one of these as well...not like they'd make it far in society, but hey, you've got 6 attacks per action, just murder the town!

I think that they are not much different personality wise than say humans or elves. They are far more likely to be protecting the village using their prowess than attacking it. They were shocktroopers, but they don't live that way now.

EDIT: And they are only 6-7 feet tall so only slightly larger than humans or elves.

[Alrik Vas]

Was just having a little fun.

[Thinyser]

Ahh I couldn't tell since there was no indication that you were being sarcastic.

[Thinyser]

Is this eligible for the FAQ?

[Alrik Vas]

Ahh I couldn't tell since there was no indication that you were being sarcastic.

I was typing, wasn't I?

[Thinyser]

Ahh I couldn't tell since there was no indication that you were being sarcastic.

I was typing, wasn't I?

Happens to me too!

[Tor]

I accept OP's linked reply in the Sep 27 amendment to his July 1 OP as reasonable evidence that this is what Bill intended, but the RAW he used to convey it did not do so explicitly enough to support that supposed intention. He should've wrote it more clearly like how Kev did in Xiticix Invasion, which had already been out at least a year, I think.

So to amend the rules to support Bill's intent is a retcon, one I think is totally cool though, and think could be eventually implemented.

A neat way to do so would have Jeridu be kinda sleepy and uncoordinated at first (slower than Xiticix) but then something happens and they get crazier-than-Xiticix (maybe something like that Lesser Old One waking up) in reaction to an action pertaining to their masters.

that's settled. Or not YMMV but that's what the author intended.

Settling RAI doesn't settle RAW discussions.

Plus we are free to engage in RAI conspiracy theory. Like "Thinyser is a secret billionaire and paid Bill Coffin 100 million bucks to lie about his original intentions, and Coffin is using the proceeds to build a killer satellite and engineer the Coming of the Rifts."

not like they'd make it far in society

Why not? Think of how great they would be at knitting. Plus if they made it to R-Earth and the Rahu-Men directed them to Dweomer, I am sure the Three would love to recruit them as Battle Magi.

I think K'Zaa might value guys who can sextuple-wield a set of Deathbringers and Spinning Blades them all.

Is this eligible for the FAQ?

The FAQ sometimes introduces new rules, like how Xiticix Invasion added the ability of quadruple strike to Warriors, this could be a fine new ability to add to the Jeridu. I figure the weaker RMB Xiticix Warriors were sleepy or something and then by Invasion they woke up and started using their limbs and strength better. Or else separate-dimensions.