I am not sure that is correct. I THINK you can use it in two hands as long as you are not TWF with it. I have to say that I am not sure anymore though.
Komodo, I believe you are right. If the extra attacks are from a high BAB, then I believe it is ok. The FAQ really just said you can't use TWF and THF together because it should be a trade off between either the 1.5xstr from THF or the 1xstr and .5str you get from TWF. Sounded like game balance issue.
Not sure about AoO
I don't think aoo are affected by the FAQ in question. When taking an aoo, you can use armor spikes or a kick or whatever is allowing you to threaten an area.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that is silly. This type of guess ruling is dangerous.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So if you have improved unarmed strike and a polearm you can not threaten with your unarmed strikes? I can nto kick someone?
See that is silly.
Well mark moreland mad the post above.
People use that as RAW. Thats why it is dangerous.
unfortunately, Mr. morelands interpretation would over rule other other developers when they say things like you can make an irative attack with armor spikes if you have any.
The most recent ruling seems to indicate that if you swing a two-handed weapon, you can't effectively employ any other weapons that round. They don't count as wielded.
So basically, if you swing a halberd then for the next six seconds your armor strikes retract and you forget how to kick people.
I find the developer ruling somewhat messy, though I can understand where they are coming from. From a sheer RAW perspective, I can see two sides:
A) Armor spikes are built into armor, and occupy a different equipment slot from regular weapons. Specific rules trump general rules, ergo armor spikes are not dependent upon your "hands" slot and can be used even when both hands are occupied.
B) Armor spikes are considered an "off-hand" weapon (this is never specifically stated, but could be inferred), which means they are dependent on your off-hand equipment slot and cannot be used unless that slot is empty.
While it may be RAI, the second ruling is quite weak in my eyes. This ruling interacts weirdly with unarmed strikes, which also are light weapons but are explicitly described as being punches, kicks, and headbutts. However, the most complicating part is the statement that armor spikes cannot be used if the character is attacking with another off-hand weapon. Under interpretation B, this statement is completely redundent since a character couldn't use armor spikes in the first place with an off-hand weapon equipped. However, this statement is very relevant for interpretation A, where it explicitly forbids a character from gaining a second off-hand attack by adding armor spikes to their equipment list (which would turn TWF into MWF). This very strongly supports interpretation A.
|
The new FAQ only deals with TWF situations. There is nothing prohibiting making iterative attacks or AoO with various different weapons. So if you have a +6/+1 BAB, there is nothing preventing you from using the +6 attack with a long spear, releasing a hand and using the +1 attack with armor spikes.
Hmmmm....though, since placing or removing a hand onto/from a two-handed weapon is considered to be a free action (which can only be done on your turn), that would affect how you threaten your surroundings in the intervening time before your next turn. I guess at the end of your turn you would need to decide if you want to threaten at reach or adjacent.
EDIT: I did not read the whole thread, and just now realized that what I posted has already been said.
Having read the actual FAQ (link), it's much tamer than what was quoted here. That said, it still doesn't make sense at a logical level, especially with unarmed attacks.
I'd also have to question why anyone would bother to do this, aside from rule of cool. The actual tradeoff appears to be very similar to power attack, but doesn't scale as nicely and cannot be used on a charge (at least without pounce). You'd need to meet the 15 dex TWF prerequisites, so barring a crazy point buy other attributes will suffer. Taken together I have a hard time believing 1d6+0.5*str could ever be a huge problem. Was there some crazy optimization I'm not aware of?
|
Well, you don't actually need the Two Weapon Fighting feat to two weapon fight.
The feat just reduces the penalties.
Yeah, right!
Because, even using a light off-hand weapon, I'm really going to get my first level martial to not bother with the feat and still TWF!
+1 BAB, +5 Str, -4 TWF for primary, -8 for off-hand!
With a single greatsword, +6 attack, 2d6+7 damage.
With long/short swords, longsword +2 attack, 1d8+5 damage
short sword -2 attack, 1d6+2 damage
versus AC 15, single weapon (including crits) 184.8 damage over 20 rounds= 9.24 per round.
long/short swords 107.8 damage over 20 rounds= 5.39 per round.
It may be possible to TWF without the feat, but no-one is going to choose that as a combat style.
So, yeah, realistically, TWF does cost a feat. Single 2HW doesn't.
Well, you don't actually need the Two Weapon Fighting feat to two weapon fight.
The feat just reduces the penalties.
While true, you'd need to be attacking something with an extremely low AC for that tradeoff to be worthwhile. If you miss on even a single attack with your main-hand weapon due to the penalty, you're coming out behind.
|
|
You can threaten with both as you can swap attacks freely between weapons with attacks, you just can get extra attacks from two weapon fighting with the new FAQ during a full attack. but you could attack with one weapon lose grip and swap between and go back and forth.
This FAQ
"Two-Handed Weapons: What kind of action is it to remove your hand from a two-handed weapon or re-grab it with both hands?Both are free actions. For example, a wizard wielding a quarterstaff can let go of the weapon with one hand as a free action, cast a spell as a standard action, and grasp the weapon again with that hand as a free action; this means the wizard is still able to make attacks of opportunity with the weapon (which requires using two hands).
As with any free action, the GM may decide a reasonable limit to how many times per round you can release and re-grasp the weapon (one release and re-grasp per round is fair). "
Little problem: with the exception of speaking [and some extremely specific ability], you can't take free actions outside your turn, so you can't change how you wield your weapons outside your turn. Most AoO are taken outside your turn.
|
|
BBT is correct.
For example, the Phalanx Soldier is a fighter archetype. At third level, he is able to use a polearm one-handed as long as he is using a shield in his off-hand.
Regardless of what attack the Phalanx Soldier makes during the round, his polearm threatens at reach targets and his shield threatens at adjacent targets. Even if he decides to make no attack during the round, he still threatens (assuming he is not affected by some other condition that disallows AAO, such as being flat-footed, full defense, etc).
Personally, I think using armor spikes as a weapon is unrealistic and silly; but per the current rules, you can...make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes.
You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack. From what I have read, the majority of players seem to interpret that you may use any weapon that is readily available for an AOO (ie, weapon is not sheathed/etc). For example, my character has IUS. During his action, he attacks once with a long sward and once with a short sword. Later in the round, an enemy provokes. Even though my character did not attack with IUS during his turn, he could still use IUS for the AOO.
BBT is correct.
For example, the Phalanx Soldier is a fighter archetype. At third level, he is able to use a polearm one-handed as long as he is using a shield in his off-hand.
Regardless of what attack the Phalanx Soldier makes during the round, his polearm threatens at reach targets and his shield threatens at adjacent targets. Even if he decides to make no attack during the round, he still threatens (assuming he is not affected by some other condition that disallows AAO, such as being flat-footed, full defense, etc).
Personally, I think using armor spikes as a weapon is unrealistic and silly; but per the current rules, you can...make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes.
You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack. From what I have read, the majority of players seem to interpret that you may use any weapon that is readily available for an AOO (ie, weapon is not sheathed/etc). For example, my character has IUS. During his action, he attacks once with a long sward and once with a short sword. Later in the round, an enemy provokes. Even though my character did not attack with IUS during his turn, he could still use IUS for the AOO.
In the interest of fairness, Phalanx isn't a good reference. At third level they can use polearms as one-handed weapons, meaning they're not actually two-handed weapons as are all other weapons that give you reach. So that's a corner case that doesn't really clarify anything here.
|
|
fretgod99, the example I gave is not a corner case. It is perfectly valid.
One-handed or two-handed doesn't even enter into it (this has nothing to do with the whoe FAQ and off-hand business that so many people are spazzing about). The point I was emphasizing was that when it comes to AOO, it doesn't matter what weapon is used during the attacker's turn. The only thing that matters is IF a weapon can be used for an regular attack, it can be used for an AOO.
In my example, the Phalanx Soldier's weapon are a polearm (with reach) and shield. Even if the soldier chooses to only attack with his polearm during his turn, he can still use his shield to make an AOO. You do not need to use a weapon during the round to be able to make an AAO with it. The same goes for Armor spikes or IUS.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This issue is turning out to be more confusing and complicated than the 2012 Monk debacle... And that's saying something...
Bah. double and triple bah.
Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?
No.
Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.—Pathfinder Design Team, 07/25/13
|
|
Bah. double and triple bah.
Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?
No.
Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.—Pathfinder Design Team, 07/25/13
And yet they later said that you can attack with armour spikes and a two-handed weapon in the same round as long as they were iterative attacks, or any attack except in TWF.
Their whole point was that you can't use a two-handed weapon in TWF. They were not limiting non-TWF attacks in any way whatsoever, and attempts to misuse that FAQ are misguided at the very least!
fretgod99, the example I gave is not a corner case. It is perfectly valid.
One-handed or two-handed doesn't even enter into it (this has nothing to do with the whoe FAQ and off-hand business that so many people are spazzing about). The point I was emphasizing was that when it comes to AOO, it doesn't matter what weapon is used during the attacker's turn. The only thing that matters is IF a weapon can be used for an regular attack, it can be used for an AOO.
In my example, the Phalanx Soldier's weapon are a polearm (with reach) and shield. Even if the soldier chooses to only attack with his polearm during his turn, he can still use his shield to make an AOO. You do not need to use a weapon during the round to be able to make an AAO with it. The same goes for Armor spikes or IUS.
Sure, I agree with all that. The reason I was saying that example isn't necessarily helpful is because the type of thing everybody is arguing about is whether using a two-handed weapon impacts whether you could use Armor Spikes to make an AoO.
Beyond that, I think I missed what you were getting at. So yes, you are correct. It shouldn't matter which weapon you use during your turn to attack in determining which weapons can be used for AoO.
|
|
Well, if a character was wielding a long sword in one hand, a short sword in the other, and had Improved Unarmed Strike, he would be able to make an Attack of Opportunity with the long sword, short sword, or unarmed strike.
EDIT: with regards to armor spikes, the root of the issue is whether or not a literal hand is required to wield it or not. This "TWF with a 2HW" FAQ is irrelevant to the discussion.
|
|
That's the point being made Hangar, it's not that simple.
It depends on whether wielding a weapon requires you to allocate the Primary and Off Hands just like an attack does. If you have to allocate hands, then the character could only make an AoO with the choices of Longsword/Shortsword, Longsword/US, or Shortsword/US.
Even though the other one is equipped, he wouldn't be wielding it since each one requires a hand (Primary or Off) and he only has those two hands (assuming a normal two armed character).
And I'm telling you that the FAQ is absolutely and unequivocally irrelevant in this discussion. The AoO may be made with any of the three weapons.
With regards to armor spikes specifically, Mark Moorland (who is in charge of making decisions for PFS) made a comment that armor spikes require the use of a hand (not a primary hand or an off hand, just a hand). So, there is some ambiguity as to whether or not armor spikes require the use of a hand or not.
If it turns out that armor spikes do not require the availability of a hand, then a armor spiked character wielding a reach polearm can make AoO with both the polearm and the armor spikes. This thread is moot.
If it turns out that armor spikes do require the availability of a hand, then the FAQ of what type of action it is to remove or regrip a hand from a two-handed weapon is the FAQ that we need to reference.
The FAQ telling us that you cannot two-weapon fight with a greatsword and armor spikes is completely irrelevant because that FAQ is specifically dealing with two-weapon fighting. Period. It has absolutely no bearing on iterative attacks or attacks of opportunity.
|
|
Uhm...you're getting what mark said considerably wrong here.
This is what Mark said:
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.He does not state that armor spikes require a free physical hand. He states that Light Weapons need a free hand.
Now go and look at light weapons on page 141 of your CRB. Read through it. Do Light Weapons require a free physical hand or do they require you to wield them with the Primary Hand or Off Hand.
This is a case of trying to change what is clearly meant by a statement because you can interpret it wrongly.
No physical hand is needed for armor spikes. He is referencing the same Primary/Off Hand that the FAQ is talking about.
Now, finish what he says about wielding. If you can't wield the armor spikes, you can't threaten them. Look at the FAQ for TWF. Wielding the two handed weapon is what prevents the off hand from being able to be used.
The fact that they are using the word wield to limit what you can do with your hands is important.
The real question here is whether or not armor spikes require an available hand to use or not. This has nothing to do with the recent TWF FAQ. If yes, then the FAQ on what type of action it is to remove a hand from a two-handed weapon drives this topic, not the FAQ on TWF (as much as you want that to be). If not, then the point is moot because what your hands are holding is irrelevant in using armor spikes.
Assuming the above is answered "yes" and it is determined that one cannot threaten with both the polearm and armor spikes, it is going to be due to the fact it is a free action to remove a hand from or put a hand on the polearm. Since a free action can only be done during your turn, you would have to decide at the end of your turn your "grip status" for which weapon you're going to threaten with in the intervening time (and this is assuming you haven't done too many other free actions during your turn and the GM doesn't just cut you off). The recent TWF FAQ has absolutely nothing to do with this.