How do Ambidexterity and Extra Arms interact?

[SuedodeuS]

Originally Posted by Gurps Fan

A side question: What about having Extra Arms and less "on" hands than default (assuming (1-A) is not the case)? For example, if I have ten hands and only one of them is "on" and the other nine are all "off", how much does it cost?

Every arm that should be "on" but is instead "off" would qualify for a -5% Limitation (basically a Nuisance Effect). So, for 10 arms but only 1 "on" hand, you'd pay [78] instead of [80]. At least, that's probably how I'd do it.

[Gurps Fan]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

The same. After all, without buying extra attacks the only thing you can use your extra arms for is grappling

I don't think so. Extra Arms advantage is of a lot of use. With Extra Arms, multiple parries on the same turn become much easier (p. B376), Dual Weapon Attack allows me to attack with any possible combination of two of my arms, Fast-Draw skill allows me to ready the number equal to my hands of weapons instantly (Martial Arts, p. 103), taking Rapid Strike option means that I can shoot multiple thrown weapon from any possible combination of two of my arms (Martial Arts, p. 120), etc. It's important to know whether the hands involved are "off" or not because it divides between "unpenalized" and "-4 for off hand" (and between "full ST" and "-2 ST off hand", if the GM uses Harsh Realism for Unarmed Fighters on p. 124 of Martial Arts).

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

and handedness doesn't affect grappling.

I've always been under the impression that handedness does affect grappling. Could you give me the page reference, please?

Originally Posted by SuedodeuS

Every arm that should be "on" but is instead "off" would qualify for a -5% Limitation (basically a Nuisance Effect). So, for 10 arms but only 1 "on" hand, you'd pay [78] instead of [80]. At least, that's probably how I'd do it.

-5% Nuisance Effect looks a bit too small to me -- that would be the same as "gets -1 reaction penalty" or "gets hungry". Maybe borrowing Clumsy (-1 to skill per -20%) special limitation from Striker (p. B88) works better? . . . but then -4 to skill would be worth -80%, which looks too generous.

[SuedodeuS]

Originally Posted by Gurps Fan

-5% Nuisance Effect looks a bit too small to me -- that would be the same as "gets -1 reaction penalty" or "gets hungry". Maybe borrowing Clumsy (-1 to skill per -20%) special limitation from Striker (p. B88) works better? . . . but then -4 to skill would be worth -80%, which looks too generous.

I considered this at first, but something that actually gives -1 to skill might not properly work with multiple grappling and the like. If you do want to use Clumsy, I'd scale it down to -1 to skill per -5%, as instances where you need to use your off-hand alone are far less likely than those where you need to use your Clumsy Striker alone.

EDIT: If the GM uses the "-2 ST for off-hand" ruling, I'd recommend you buy your off-hand arms with the Weak Limitation.

[walkir]

Only "problem" with this: This assumes only bilateral beings. While I do not think spherical beings have an "off" side and consider asymmetric and radial beings problematic in that respect, one should at least include trilateral symmetry.

If doing strange aliens,one canas well do it right. (And now I go back thinking about how to do a battle suit for a trilateral alien with 6 arms and 6 legs...;) )

[Pip Boy]

I guess this is FAQ worthy... Why not ask Kromm, and given an anwser, we show it to Molokh?

[Der Wanderer]

I asked this question to Kromm about 3 years ago, so here are his answers:

Ok, assuming our hero has 4 arms (Extra Arms 2)...
How many of his four Hands, are off-hands?

Originally Posted by Kromm

Half of them.

Does Ambidexterity affect all Hands, removing off-hand penalties from all?

Originally Posted by Kromm

Yes.

[smurf]

Originally Posted by Der Wanderer

I asked this question to Kromm about 3 years ago, so here are his answers:

Ok, assuming our hero has 4 arms (Extra Arms 2)...
How many of his four Hands, are off-hands?

Does Ambidexterity affect all Hands, removing off-hand penalties from all?

I go for the Krommian view.

Extra hands cost a bucket anyway. And the inconvience of extra limbs would balance out any penalty in a 'humanoid' world.

4 arms are going to require a whole new set of clothes.

My alien is a 5 limbed thing, 2 arms, 2 legs and a tail. Ambidextrous too. As the tail does not have fine manipulation, just let it go.

If you want to price extra limbs into Ambidextrous, you could always use perks.

[Humabout]

Originally Posted by Gurps Fan

A side question: What about having Extra Arms and less "on" hands than default (assuming (1-A) is not the case)? For example, if I have ten hands and only one of them is "on" and the other nine are all "off", how much does it cost?

I would approach this with the same philosophy as applying limitations on Extra Arms being applied to your standard two arms (like a person with one weak arm or a short one).

If half of your arms are "on" and half are "off", and Ambidextierty makes half of your arms "on", then you can extrapolate that you naturally have all "off" hands and get Ambidexterity for half of them for free [5]. This is analogous to the assumption that you get Extra Arms 2 for free (to have two arms) and modifiers to your arm or arms cost you the percentage increase or grant the precentage decrease. You can do the same with your Ambidexterity. I'd take a base cost of [5] and apply an appropriate Accessibility limitation as discussed before. The number of points [5] is reduced by is the magnitude of the disadvantage.

Originally Posted by walkir

Only "problem" with this: This assumes only bilateral beings. While I do not think spherical beings have an "off" side and consider asymmetric and radial beings problematic in that respect, one should at least include trilateral symmetry.

Honestly, I don't see where this poses much of a problem. Non-bilateral beings get ahlf of their arms as "on". When designing the creature, designate which ones are "on" and which are "off" naturally. Ambidexterity (wiht potentail modifiers) modifies the "off" ones you designate. For those with an odd number of limbs, I'd say half, rounded down, personally. If you want to be generous, round up. You can probably judge if that's good by how many people start buying Ambidexterity (One Arm).

[Snargash Moonclaw]

If designing a creature then there really is no restriction that it must be designed with "off" limbs at all. The question is more a matter of how many points go into the template. You can still begin with the inherent assumption that 1/2 are on, and 1/2 are off- whether this involves "sides" or alternating limbs or whatever. Per Kromm's clarification quoted above then, for 5 points in the template, all the creature's limbs are "on."

If 1/2 are off, a good place to start considering which will have to do then with visual direction (or other primary sense as applicable). e.g., If you're designing something evolved from octopi then you could look at "front" limbs on (if eyes face forward) and back limbs off, or if eye's are placed opposite each other - two limbs closest to each eye on, the two in between ("blind sides") off. Of course such a creature could easily have 360 deg. Vision and all hands on - just put the cost into the template - the creature would certainly make sense in this fashion which is probably part of the underlying design goal in the first place. . . The mathematical gymnastics would only matter if for some reason you want say 6 on, 2 off, such as extended peripheral vision making the two "back limbs" "blind sided."

[Rendu]

Originally Posted by walkir

If doing strange aliens,one canas well do it right. (And now I go back thinking about how to do a battle suit for a trilateral alien with 6 arms and 6 legs...;) )

Not actually a useful contribution, but too amusing a coincidence that this showed up in my Inbox yesterday:

"My parents went to a planet without bilateral symmetry, and all they brought me was this lousy F-shirt."