Attack of opportunity with the armor spikes?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 268 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

First some copy&paste from the PF SRD

Armor Spikes: You can have spikes added to your armor, which allow you to deal extra piercing damage (see “spiked armor” on Table: Weapons) on a successful grapple attack. The spikes count as a martial weapon. If you are not proficient with them, you take a –4 penalty on grapple checks when you try to use them. You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can't also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.) An enhancement bonus to a suit of armor does not improve the spikes' effectiveness, but the spikes can be made into magic weapons in their own right.

Summary:
- deal extra damage when grappling
- can be used a regular (offhand, light) melee attack

My question:
When a foe provokes an attack of opportunity due to moving through your adjacent squares, can you make this attack of opportunity with the armor spikes?

Nowhere it is stated it can not, but as a DM I try to apply the rules correctly.
Often I have combined the rules (and spells) of 3.0, 3.5 an PF into a mixture of "3.75", which frustrates my players.

Thanks for any feedback!

Just a link to another relevant post/thread would suffice for me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Armor spikes are a regular light weapon with no additional restrictions. So you can make AoOs with them like with any other light weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes you can.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Yes you can, but you'd probably rather use the much better weapon you're holding in hand.


...unless the 'weapon in hand' is a reach weapon which doesn't threaten adjacent squares.

In which case you pretty much default to armor spikes.


Thanks for responding!


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber

If you are holding a reach weapon and you try to use Armor Spikes for an AoO against an adjacent square, I would rule you stop threatening any squares at all with that reach weapon, as you are no longer wielding the weapon in two hands. I think I would allow you to begin threatening adjacent squares only if you stop threatening the reach squares, unless you have the "Pole Fighting" ability, or whatever it is called that lets you attack adjacent squares with a reach weapon(No 3PP feats allowed at my table). I see folks saying "But, it is a headbutt, a knee to the groin, bodycheck, etc.", but sure feels like reality argument velveeta to me, since the ability specifically addresses changing grip and the need to do so again before using the weapon normally. It does not specifically mention whether you are now not threatening the wider area, so I guess that RAW indicate that you still threaten the reach areas, but would have to attack with the minus, until you adjust your grip again for any AoOs?

It seems to me that there is a design/balance reason for not allowing a reach weapon to threaten adjacent squares that you are ignoring the spirit of if you are allowed to freely switch the range at which you threaten. Am I nuts?

I have been reading a ton of threads on this, as I just rolled up a Polearm Fighter and am trying to work through some of these issues myself. My brain my be full, and I know that I am getting a lot of info that is opinion, and that I am merely stating my own interpretation. If someone can be more definitive, I would appreciate any real citations.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dovaj Viajiir wrote:

If you are holding a reach weapon and you try to use Armor Spikes for an AoO against an adjacent square, I would rule you stop threatening any squares at all with that reach weapon, as you are no longer wielding the weapon in two hands. I think I would allow you to begin threatening adjacent squares only if you stop threatening the reach squares, unless you have the "Pole Fighting" ability, or whatever it is called that lets you attack adjacent squares with a reach weapon(No 3PP feats allowed at my table). I see folks saying "But, it is a headbutt, a knee to the groin, bodycheck, etc.", but sure feels like reality argument velveeta to me, since the ability specifically addresses changing grip and the need to do so again before using the weapon normally. It does not specifically mention whether you are now not threatening the wider area, so I guess that RAW indicate that you still threaten the reach areas, but would have to attack with the minus, until you adjust your grip again for any AoOs?

It seems to me that there is a design/balance reason for not allowing a reach weapon to threaten adjacent squares that you are ignoring the spirit of if you are allowed to freely switch the range at which you threaten. Am I nuts?

I have been reading a ton of threads on this, as I just rolled up a Polearm Fighter and am trying to work through some of these issues myself. My brain my be full, and I know that I am getting a lot of info that is opinion, and that I am merely stating my own interpretation. If someone can be more definitive, I would appreciate any real citations.

That's not an interpretation, that is a house rule. Armor spikes clearly say that you can make melee attack with them and that they count as light weapons.


Any polearm (melee reach weapon) has better crit range, better damage dice and str multipliers than the simple spiked armor. Therefore changing reach range of polearms should be expensive to buy with feats and subjected to constrictions. Extending the reach of polearms is powerful.

An AoO with spiked armor is nice to have but unlikely to affect a combat much, unless it is substituted by a combat maneuvre.

I do not think a player would spend equal number of feats (weapon focus, weapons spec, weapon training feature, etc) on both polearms and spiked armor for his PC.


Yes. Every pole arm fighter should be wearing this for that reason.


Or a Spiked Gauntlet.


Wraithcannon wrote:
Or a Spiked Gauntlet.

The gauntlet just gets a little confusing with switching your hand on your weapon to hand off your weapon when its not your turn. IRL its not an issue, since you'll do it all the time swinging it around. In game its not a defined action type, so its easier if the spike is comming out of your elbow or something, so you know you can use it.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Meteor Hammer FTW?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In order to threaten with a weapon, you must wield it.
If you wield a weapon, apply the mechanics of it.

...THEREFORE...

If you're wielding a glaive and wearing armor spikes, you must be TWF to threaten with armor spikes. Apply TWF mechanics for your attacks, AoOs, etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malignor wrote:

In order to threaten with a weapon, you must wield it.

If you wield a weapon, apply the mechanics of it.

...THEREFORE...

If you're wielding a glaive and wearing armor spikes, you must be TWF to threaten with armor spikes. Apply TWF mechanics for your attacks, AoOs, etc.

You are wrong.

A character can weild a scimitar in one hand and a longsword in the other but can chose to attack with only the scimitar, of course he will get only once his STR to damage and only the -1/+2 ratio of power attack but will not get twf penalties for doing so.
You are thinking using a weapon, sure if during his turn attacks both with the scimitar and the longsword then yes he must take the twf penalties.

carrying!=weilding!=using

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

leo1925 wrote:
carrying!=weilding!=using

I don't like that notation for "does not equal". I kept reading it with the exclamation points applied to the preceding word, and the "=" being "equals".

Thus, I read that line as "extremely carrying is the same as wielding with intensity is the same as using".

:P


Jiggy wrote:
leo1925 wrote:
carrying!=weilding!=using

I don't like that notation for "does not equal". I kept reading it with the exclamation points applied to the preceding word, and the "=" being "equals".

Thus, I read that line as "extremely carrying is the same as wielding with intensity is the same as using".

:P

Sorry if i caused any confusion, using " != " has became a habit of mine from programming.


leo1925 wrote:


You are thinking using a weapon, sure if during his turn attacks both with the scimitar and the longsword then yes he must take the twf penalties.

Not even then would he have to take TWF penalties.

Only when he is actually TWFing would he take TWFing penalties. To do this he's getting an extra attack with the weapon he designates as 'secondary'.

You could conceivably attack with 5 different weapons if you had say a +16BAB and say quickdraw to make it easy. You would not be 'five'-weapon fighting in such a case.

Now you could elect to have in addition to those 5 different weapons that you are quickdrawing (then attacking & dropping) a 6th weapon in your other hand that you denote as 'secondary' and make a TWF attack routine. You would then get a total of 6 attacks that would look like (ignoring modifiers):

BAB+16 Main weapon attack
BAB+16 secondary weapon attack via TWF
Drop main weapon, quickdraw another 'main' weapon
BAB+11 new main weapon attack
drop new main weapon, quickdraw 3rd 'main' weapon
BAB+6 3rd 'main' weapon attack
drop 3rd main weapon, quickdraw 4th 'main' weapon
BAB+1 4th 'main' weapon attack.

But mind you such littering the battlefield is not encouraged as civic minded gelatinous cubes have been known to tidy up things.

-James


leo1925 wrote:
Malignor wrote:

In order to threaten with a weapon, you must wield it.

If you wield a weapon, apply the mechanics of it.

...THEREFORE...

If you're wielding a glaive and wearing armor spikes, you must be TWF to threaten with armor spikes. Apply TWF mechanics for your attacks, AoOs, etc.

You are wrong.

A character can weild a scimitar in one hand and a longsword in the other but can chose to attack with only the scimitar, of course he will get only once his STR to damage and only the -1/+2 ratio of power attack but will not get twf penalties for doing so.
You are thinking using a weapon, sure if during his turn attacks both with the scimitar and the longsword then yes he must take the twf penalties.

carrying!=weilding!=using

Misunderstanding. I chose the world "wield" and never equated it to "hold". Remove the words from my mouth, please.

Suppose a character with a Glaive and Armor Spikes. They can do the following "modes":

  • 2-handed reach, "2HR"
  • Two-weapon-fighting, "TWF"
  • One Light weapon, "1LW"

    2HR

  • Does not threaten with armor spikes; it's like they don't count, because he's ignoring them in order to ...
  • Get all benefits (and drawbacks) of two-handed fighting and reach.

    TWF

  • Threatens with both the glaive (reach) and armor spikes (adjacent).
  • Get all benefits (and drawbacks) of TWF, though with a mixed reach (which is okay if adjacent to a larger opponent).
  • May or may not (personally, I allow it) also apply the benefits of two-handed fighting.

    1LW

  • Does not threaten with the glaive. It's being held but not wielded.
  • Threatens with the armor spikes.
  • Get all benefits (and drawbacks) of fighting with one light weapon.

    In order to attack with the glaive and still threaten with the armor spikes, the character must be in "TWF mode". In other words, when he attacks on his turn, he had to apply TWF mechanics. When I DM, TWF and 2WF are not mutually exclusive, so he could do both.


  • @james maissen
    You are correct, if the character has iterative attacks.
    In my example said character doesn't, i should have said so.

    @Malignor
    When did i claimed that you talked about holding a weapon? I just mentioned (at the end of my post) the fact that even holding a weapon is different from both weilding and using it.

    There are no rules for modes.

    Everytime you attack you can use any weapon(s) you are weilding, so the character with the glaive attacks only with the glaive during his turn, so no twf penalties for him. When he gets an attack of opportunity his turn has (usually) ended, so he again chose with which weapon to attack, to use the armor spikes is the same of using his foot (in case he has improved unarmed strike).

    Again you are thinking that weilding and using a weapon is the same thing but they aren't.
    For example:
    a wizard can very well weild a +3 defending longsword during the round he casts a spell which has somatic components but he can't get extra AC from the longsword because he didn't use it this turn.


    Malignor wrote:


    In order to attack with the glaive and still threaten with the armor spikes, the character must be in "TWF mode". In other words, when he attacks on his turn, he had to apply TWF mechanics. When I DM, TWF and 2WF are not mutually exclusive, so he could...

    There is no such 'mode' of which you speak.

    Rather it does not matter if the character didn't even attack the prior round.

    Also TWF penalties only apply to the TWF full attack and not to subsequent or prior AOOs.

    -James


    james maissen wrote:
    Malignor wrote:


    In order to attack with the glaive and still threaten with the armor spikes, the character must be in "TWF mode". In other words, when he attacks on his turn, he had to apply TWF mechanics. When I DM, TWF and 2WF are not mutually exclusive, so he could...
    There is no such 'mode' of which you speak.
    I use the word "mode" to differentiate between the different attack patterns or feats which can be applied.
    Quote:
    Also TWF penalties only apply to the TWF full attack and not to subsequent or prior AOOs.

    Quite right.

    I'm glad I didn't make that claim.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    2WF penalties apply only to the 2WF Full Attack with extra off-hand attacks.
    Even IF you 2WF during your turn, the penalties don´t apply to any extra attacks you make.
    That means AoO´s are always at Full BAB, and if you somehow have an abilit to make an attack as a Swift Action DURING your turn,
    that doesn´t suffer 2WF Penalties either, again, because 2WF simply modifies the Full Attack action and nothing else.
    (obviously, some people e.g. 2WF Fighter Archtypes, can 2WF as a Standard Action, but likewise that doesn´t affect anything else)

    Only effects like Power Attack, which specifically say that all your attacks for the round suffer the penalty / gain the benefit, apply to ALL attacks, and thus AoO´s.

    SKR has actually clarified something re: Armor Spikes though. He specifically acknowledges that one can´t get this out of the current RAW, but he wrote that the RAI is that Armor Spikes are not really ´all over your body´, and they need an arm to use... Apparently that will make it into the next Errata/Printing of the Core Rules. What that means is that, whatever you did on your turn, if you want to threaten with Armor Spikes you need a free hand. Unless you have a 3rd arm usable for attacks, or have the Pole-Arm Fighter Archtype that allows 1-handed Pole-arm usage that will mean that you will need to take 1 hand off the Pole-Arm which will mean that you can no longer attack/threaten with it.


    Malignor wrote:
    In order to attack with the glaive and still threaten with the armor spikes, the character must be in "TWF mode". In other words, when he attacks on his turn, he had to apply TWF mechanics.

    But the bolded part is dead wrong. If you don´t get the extra off-hand attacks during Full Attack action (or Standard if 2WF Fighter), then you never used 2WF. Per my above post, there is problems with trying to threaten with BOTH the Glaive and Armor Spikes simultaneously (although characters with 3 arms or the Pole-Arm Fighter Archetype can do so just fine, again without invoking 2WF). But if you want to make your Full Attack with the Glaive, switch grips so you now threaten with Armor Spikes, and then threaten with Armor Spikes so you can take AoO´s with them, that´s totally fine, and 2WF is never invoked for anything. If you have some Swift Action attack option, you can even do that on your turn, attacking with Armor Spikes after the Glaive Full-Attack, without ever invoking 2WF for anything.


    Malignor wrote:
    james maissen wrote:
    Malignor wrote:


    In order to attack with the glaive and still threaten with the armor spikes, the character must be in "TWF mode". In other words, when he attacks on his turn, he had to apply TWF mechanics. When I DM, TWF and 2WF are not mutually exclusive, so he could...
    There is no such 'mode' of which you speak.
    I use the word "mode" to differentiate between the different attack patterns or feats which can be applied.

    If so then you made a mistake on the 2HR entry, under the current rules you can threaten with more weapons than you hold in your hands, as long as you weild them. A fighter using a longspear to attack during his turn still threatens with his feet if he has the improved unarmed strike feat.

    @Quandary
    Have a link on that? I am curious to see SKR's take on this issue.
    If and when what you said is made into an errata or FAQ then yes you won't be able to threaten with armor spikes when you use a two handed weapon, but with the current rules you can very well do.


    leo1925 wrote:
    A character can weild a scimitar in one hand and a longsword in the other but can chose to attack with only the scimitar, of course he will get only once his STR to damage and only the -1/+2 ratio of power attack but will not get twf penalties for doing so.

    More realistically, Some bards use a whip in one hand and a sickle in the other hand.


    Okay, here's a question to ask:

    A cleric with a greatsword performs a move action, then casts Chaos Hammer on his turn. Does he threaten with his greatsword until his next round or not?


    Yes, if the casting time is a full-round action or less.

    If the casting time is one round or more, he doesn't threaten during the incantation.


    Malignor wrote:

    Okay, here's a question to ask:

    A cleric with a greatsword performs a move action, then casts a spell on his turn. Does he threaten with his greatsword until his next round or not?

    No because he isn't weilding his greatsword, merely holding it but if he has armor spikes then he threatens.

    EDIT:
    I was wrong, GâtFromKI is correct.


    Wielding a weapon you're holding is not an action. He can wield his greatsword after casting, therefore he threatens.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    leo1925 wrote:

    @Quandary

    Have a link on that? I am curious to see SKR's take on this issue.
    If and when what you said is made into an errata or FAQ then yes you won't be able to threaten with armor spikes when you use a two handed weapon, but with the current rules you can very well do.

    Here´s what I found:

    Mark Moreland wrote:

    Quote:
    Armor spikes are treated as light weapons for the purpose of threatening adjacent squares. Light weapons require the use of limbs, so you would only be able to make attacks with them if you have a free hand. Thus, wielding a two-handed reach weapon would negate your ability to "wield" (and thus threaten with) armor spikes. This isn't necessarily clear in the rules, but I just discussed it with Jason, and we're both on the same page about the intent.
    Jason Bulmahn later followed that up (after much b@@@&ing in the thread) with:
    Quote:

    Hey there Everybody,

    Alright everybody. Lets just take it down a notch. I got a few quick points.

    - We are currently looking into the whole armor spike/misc non-hand weapons and how they threaten. This was a slightly bigger issue than I first thought when I gave an off the cuff opinion.

    - The thing to remember here, that I want to stress, is that generally speaking, the only places where a PFS judge is required to follow rulings is the rulebooks, updates, FAQ posts, and PFS rules documents. Everything else is left to judge discretion at the table. There is no way around this. We cannot ask our judges to be familiar with every ruling or thought from every messageboard post, even if it comes from a staff member.

    - For you home game, you don't even have to pay attention to the above sources. Its your game after all.

    I hope to get a FAQ on this issue soon.

    Jason Bulmahn
    Lead Designer
    Paizo Publishing

    So this is something that hasn´t seemed to enter the ´official rules´ yet,

    but given we have a pretty good sign of what the developers think, and that they plan to change it,
    nobody should be surprised when this IS formalized in some way, and I´d just prefer to play like this currently since it seems the RAI direct from the developer´s mouth. Note, I never IMAGINED anything like this before reading that it was Paizo´s intent for the ability (i.e. I had always thought and played that ´butt slams´ with both hands occupied were totally legit and intended).


    GâtFromKI wrote:

    Wielding a weapon you're holding is not an action. He can wield his greatsword after casting, therefore he threatens.

    I think that example presumed that you needed a free hand for components/somatic gestures of the spell, but as it´s accepted that ´switching grips´ is a free action, there´s no reason the character couldn´t RE-wield the greatsword with two-hands (putting one more hand back on) after the casting and before the end of their turn (allowing to wield the greatsword for AoO´s).

    Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

    If I were the GM, and any PC not in a grapple attacked with armor spikes (AoO or not), I would force them to demonstrate how exactly they're managing to do it.

    Meanwhile, I (or a cohort) would record this demonstration and post it on YouTube.


    GâtFromKI wrote:

    Wielding a weapon you're holding is not an action. He can wield his greatsword after casting, therefore he threatens.

    Technically, you're not wielding a weapon unless you have attacked with it that round. Simply having it in your hand is not sufficient.

    Note I think this is a lousy ruling, but per the Defending Weapon FAQ, you only wield a weapon if you attack with it first. And any round you do not attack with it, you do not wield it.

    Defending Weapon FAQ

    PRD wrote:
    Defending: A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the weapon'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 bonus to AC lasts until his next turn.

    In my own games, I use what I consider to be the more elegant solution of saying that a weapon must be in hand and valid for use in an AoO for it to be considered to be wielded. If you have a two-handed defending great sword, and you pick up a potion to drink, you are not wielding your great sword and do not threaten with it, and cannot get the defending property, etc.


    @Quandary
    Thank you for the link.
    It's good to know Jason's intent, and i accept that, probably will use it in my games until i see something telling me otherwise.
    What i can't accept is that under the current rules it's not possible, it's very possible.


    Huh, yeah, "switching grip" was the expression I was looking for.


    Malignor wrote:


    I'm glad I didn't make that claim.

    However you made other, quite wrong, claims.

    You could have a character with a short sword in one hand, a dagger in the other, wearing armor spikes, a barbazu beard, has a boot blade out and has the improved unarmed strike feat.

    This character could double move during their turn, and they would threaten adjacent squares with all of the weapons listed above.

    On their turn they could elect to make an attack action with any of the weapons listed without first taking any action (say a free action to draw).

    If they elected a full attack action they could attack with any combination thereof as they went through their BAB granted attacks and they would not be 'six weapon fighting'..

    -James


    mdt wrote:


    Technically, you're not wielding a weapon unless you have attacked with it that round. Simply having it in your hand is not sufficient.

    This is incorrect.

    mdt wrote:


    Note I think this is a lousy ruling, but per the Defending Weapon FAQ, you only wield a weapon if you attack with it first. And any round you do not attack with it, you do not wield it.

    Please go back and re-read that FAQ as you've misread it. Likewise the Defending weapon special ability.

    Wield is not used in either place whatsoever.

    SKR's defending weapon ruling is that the word 'use' in the ability refers to attacking with the weapon in that round.

    It is NOT saying that one has to attack with a weapon in the prior round to be wielding it. Think about it.. what use would the part of flatfooted AOOs for Combat Reflexes be with that reading? Or the full defense no longer threatening squares?

    mdt wrote:


    In my own games, I use what I consider to be the more elegant solution of saying that a weapon must be in hand and valid for use in an AoO for it to be considered to be wielded. If you have a two-handed defending great sword, and you pick up a potion to drink, you are not wielding your great sword and do not threaten with it, and cannot get the defending property, etc.

    And in your own games it would seem as if you are playing close to the RAW, except to be technical 'in hand' need not apply. You can AOO with a kick (if it's armed via improved unarmed strike feat) or a natural bite attack without having to have either your foot or your mouth in your hand.

    -James


    mdt wrote:

    Technically, you're not wielding a weapon unless you have attacked with it that round. Simply having it in your hand is not sufficient.

    Note I think this is a lousy ruling, but per the Defending Weapon FAQ, you only wield a weapon if you attack with it first. And any round you do not attack with it, you do not wield it.

    Huh.

    It is very, very lousy, since it means you can't wield a reach weapon and wait for someone to approach. And shouldn't Combat reflexes allow you to do AoO when you're surprised? Meh.

    Edit: ninja'ed.


    Jiggy wrote:

    If I were the GM, and any PC not in a grapple attacked with armor spikes (AoO or not), I would force them to demonstrate how exactly they're managing to do it.

    Meanwhile, I (or a cohort) would record this demonstration and post it on YouTube.

    Watch out if your player is combat trained he can just ram you with his shoulder, elbow to your face, or knee you in the nads. These are all places where I imagine armor spikes can be placed on armor.


    james maissen wrote:

    You could have a character with a short sword in one hand, a dagger in the other, wearing armor spikes, a barbazu beard, has a boot blade out and has the improved unarmed strike feat.

    This character could double move during their turn, and they would threaten adjacent squares with all of the weapons listed above.

    On their turn they could elect to make an attack action with any of the weapons listed without first taking any action (say a free action to draw).

    If they elected a full attack action they could attack with any combination thereof as they went through their BAB granted attacks and they would not be 'six weapon fighting'..

    -James

    I like this response. It's very lucid and corrects me handily.

    +1, sir, +1.


    Apparently I stirred up an ants heap....,
    kind of funny.


    EarthDragon wrote:

    Apparently I stirred up an ants heap....,

    kind of funny.

    It's one of those questions that comes up from time to time.

    It's based on what words the game elects to use as terms and the obvious associations people will make based on the choice of those names.

    It really would be nice if the designers would make a list of these and simply address them directly, say in a product that they could call 'a rules compendium' or simply 'your FAQ'.

    -James

    Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

    Gignere wrote:
    Jiggy wrote:

    If I were the GM, and any PC not in a grapple attacked with armor spikes (AoO or not), I would force them to demonstrate how exactly they're managing to do it.

    Meanwhile, I (or a cohort) would record this demonstration and post it on YouTube.

    Watch out if your player is combat trained he can just ram you with his shoulder, elbow to your face, or knee you in the nads. These are all places where I imagine armor spikes can be placed on armor.

    I didn't say demonstrate on me! Ow! Hey! Stop it!


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Jiggy wrote:

    If I were the GM, and any PC not in a grapple attacked with armor spikes (AoO or not), I would force them to demonstrate how exactly they're managing to do it.

    Meanwhile, I (or a cohort) would record this demonstration and post it on YouTube.

    If you did that, i would require your to demonstrate how you cast a real fireball, or admit that your request is invalid.

    It stands to reason that your players are not pro streetfighters IRL, just as the GM player is not really able to work combat magic IRL.
    Just like you cant penalize a verbally challenged player with +18 in diplomacy / bluff / intimidate, for not being able to roleplay making an diplomacy check at 35.


    Sorry for double post from another thread, but it seems more relevant here:

    An elf fighter using a bow and having armor spikes while being enlarged and having improved trip feat, could prevent a non-reach opponent from closing to melee. Then add parting shot, and you have a silly combo.

    But its well withing the letter of the rules, no?


    This thread got necro'd

    Someone in here gave me contradictory this weekend to what they said in this thread, which means something changed, or they're mistaken.

    Anyways, I use a cestus with my bow to threaten because they're cheaper and do bludgeoning damage too.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    A question/gripe I have is on how people rule glove weapons with two handed weapons.

    I can use a feat like snap shot with combat reflexes to reload my ranged weapon bow/xbow/gun/throwing weapon (others with feats to free action) iirc, but when my turn ends, I need to choose if I am threatening with my pokearm or glove weapon? Why isn't it reasonable to let go and swing your fist as an aoo, while threatening both ranges? You're not even grabbing another weapon, but rather the weapon is attached already to your fist.

    Is this purely interpretation, or what rule specifically states you can't let go and grab again when not your turn?

    EDIT: can I choose to either one hand or two hand on an aoo with a long sword? Being stuck to your last grip seems absurd


    Rapanuii, you make a really good point.


    I can do complicated combat maneuvers, or just swing a weapon at someone on an aoo, but someone feels it's unreasonable to do in this instance to let go, or grab ahold of something already conveniently out, because it's considered a "free action". Where in the rules does it clearly say that this can't happen, or is this interpretation?

    1 to 50 of 268 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Attack of opportunity with the armor spikes? All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.