Double Hit, Dual Strike and a 3rd weapon through Perfect Multiweapon Fighting

[ThePower124]

Would Double Hit and Dual Strike work with a tertiary weapon obtained through Perfect Multiweapon Fighting? My DM said that as long as I find convincing evidence that it does he'd allow it. If anyone has any good convincing arguments please share them, it would really boost up my character's offensive output.

[pabelfly]

Would Double Hit and Dual Strike work with a tertiary weapon obtained through Perfect Multiweapon Fighting? My DM said that as long as I find convincing evidence that it does he'd allow it. If anyone has any good convincing arguments please share them, it would really boost up my character's offensive output.

Doesn't look like it, IMO. If you read Double Hit and Dual Strike they both refer to a singular offhand weapon.

So, what sort of build do you have that you need to pump damage ouput with Perfect Multiweapon Fighting? Every time I do a MWF build my issue is trying to keep tone damage output to something reasonable compared to the other martials in the party.

[Biggus]

The best argument I can think of is in the text of the Perfect Multiweapon Fighting feat itself:


You can make as many attacks with each extra weapon as with your primary weapon, using the same base attack bonus.


This feat replaces the Perfect Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms (and functions identically to that feat if you have fewer than three arms).

You can certainly make a case that this means it should work with Dual Strike and Double Hit, but it's far from watertight. I think it's going to come down to whether your DM is feeling generous.

[flappeercraft]

Hi DM here


Doesn't look like it, IMO. If you read Double Hit and Dual Strike they both refer to a singular offhand weapon.

So, what sort of build do you have that you need to pump damage ouput with Perfect Multiweapon Fighting? Every time I do a MWF build my issue is trying to keep tone damage output to something reasonable compared to the other martials in the party.

He's using a psychic warrior build with dips into martial monk to cheese into Perfect Multiweapon Fighting because it's technically an epic fighter bonus feat. We're playing a no holds barred semi-TO game, so I actually don't mind him boosting his damage output.


The best argument I can think of is in the text of the Perfect Multiweapon Fighting feat itself:





You can certainly make a case that this means it should work with Dual Strike and Double Hit, but it's far from watertight. I think it's going to come down to whether your DM is feeling generous.

Yeah I did mention that originally, though also concluded it was unclear and very subject to interpretation. I'm gonna wait til there is more RAW evidence if any exists til I make a decision. Usually more permissive with players RAW wise than with myself tho so I might allow it.

[Darg]

Just a heads up, epic feats aren't bonus fighter feats.

Other than that, I really think the best evidence is the fact there is a lack of evidence for multi-weapon fighting. Unlike two-weapon fighting there is no actual rule that allows it except from monster stat blocks (have exceptions all over) and the feat itself implying that there is such a rule. As the rule is non-existent, the multi-weapon feat does nothing unless it's allowed in the first place. If multi-weapon fighting is allowed and as letting it work with the feats in question seems to be acceptable in the first first place, there isn't a real reason to prevent it based on a RAW argument as multi-weapon fighting isn't RAW.

[flappeercraft]

Just a heads up, epic feats aren't bonus fighter feats.

Other than that, I really think the best evidence is the fact there is a lack of evidence for multi-weapon fighting. Unlike two-weapon fighting there is no actual rule that allows it except from monster stat blocks (have exceptions all over) and the feat itself implying that there is such a rule. As the rule is non-existent, the multi-weapon feat does nothing unless it's allowed in the first place. If multi-weapon fighting is allowed and as letting it work with the feats in question seems to be acceptable in the first first place, there isn't a real reason to prevent it based on a RAW argument as multi-weapon fighting isn't RAW.

Its on the epic fighter bonus feat list, not just a random epic feat. Also I'm aware, as I said before, I'm more permissive with my players than myself.

[holbita]

I mean, at this point is up to you the DM to decide. As it is, RAW, nor can the select the epic feat, nor will it work dual strike or double hit. But if you are playing an already OP campaign and you look at the rest of the players and they are doing crazyer things... go for it.

Just make sure the players understand you are allowing this to work IN THIS CAMPAIGN, so that they later don't come to you asking for this on a lower power campaign.

[flappeercraft]

The ELH epic classes were updated in the 3.5 DMG. There is no longer any epic class feat lists.

Huh you’re right. The DMG doesn’t show a list but the SRD does.

But regardless epic feat discussion isn’t what this thread is for.

[Darg]

The ELH has other feats like multi-weapon rend that automatically replaces two-weapon rend. Honestly, the theme is that there are multi-weapon versions of two-weapon feats. That said it doesn't always mean you get more out of it other than better accessibility. MWRend just makes it so that any combo of 2 weapons, regardless of how many weapons, initiates the rend.

If we go by the power curve of MWFighting and MWRend, Double Hit is already right there as you can 2h two weapons for bonus power attack damage and str bonus. Dual Strike on the other hand wouldn't be too strong with allowing more weapons as it heavily penalizes more than one 2h wielded 1h weapon and prevents more than one critical/source of precision damage.