"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 Back to Top "
"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).
—Pathfinder Design Team, 03/01/13"
It does seem to make it clear that you have to be wielding a weapon, and if you are wielding a two-handed weapon, you aren't able to wield anything else. I also note in the first FAQ that it says you are unable to make "any" attacks, not just attacks as part of that full attack sequence. I can definitely see where Bb and crew are coming from.
The caveat to that is I wouldn't be making an off-hand attack if I made an AoO with Armor Spikes. It's a primary attack in that instance.
Design Manager
|
The caveat to that is I wouldn't be making an off-hand attack if I made an AoO with Armor Spikes. It's a primary attack in that instance.
The FAQ however, states that you are using both hands to wield your two handed weapon and your "off-hand" is not available for any attacks. You are still wielding a weapon with both hands, so you have no "hands" left to be wielding anything else.
|
this is not quite true. SKR stated that you can make one attack with a greatsword and make the iterative with the armor spikes while you are still holding your greatword with two hands.The caveat to that is I wouldn't be making an off-hand attack if I made an AoO with Armor Spikes. It's a primary attack in that instance.The FAQ however, states that you are using both hands to wield your two handed weapon and your "off-hand" is not available for any attacks. You are still wielding a weapon with both hands, so you have no "hands" left to be wielding anything else.
is it in a FAQ?
citation please.
this is not quite true. SKR stated that you can make one attack with a greatsword and make the iterative with the armor spikes while you are still holding your greatword with two hands.The caveat to that is I wouldn't be making an off-hand attack if I made an AoO with Armor Spikes. It's a primary attack in that instance.The FAQ however, states that you are using both hands to wield your two handed weapon and your "off-hand" is not available for any attacks. You are still wielding a weapon with both hands, so you have no "hands" left to be wielding anything else.is it in a FAQ?
citation please.
See SKR's first point here.
EDIT: Ninja'd.
Also, note his last point in that post.
Finally, does this have any effect on threatening and attacks of opportunity, e.g. when I used a longspear to attack in a round, can I still threaten with unarmed strikes and make attacks into adjacent fields?I don't think this ruling has any effect on that; AOOs are outside the normal sequence of actions you can perform on your turn.
|
Design Manager
|
Well, it might invalidate it for a few levels, but once your character gets an iterative attack, the "attack once with a 2H weapon, attack again with my iterative attack using armor spikes or whatever" technique is perfectly valid under the rules.If you could potentially be making an attack with it (or an AOO with it), you are wielding it. Good enough.If you can attack with it you are wielding it and therefore you can make AoO with it.
here it is, this solve the entire problem
/thread.
Except for the fact that the entire point of the thread is about whether or not you can attack with it and thus whether or not you're considered to be wielding it. And dev quotes that pre-date the official FAQ are counting for a little less these days. That quote was from 5 days before the offical FAQ. Anyone else notice that they changed the FAQ they just put up about two-handed weapons wielded in one hand? That FAQ was less than 2 weeks old before it was changed to say the exact opposite of what it had said originally. It'd be nice to have an official response to this question, if for no other reason than to mitigate table variation in organized play.
|
|
this is not quite true. SKR stated that you can make one attack with a greatsword and make the iterative with the armor spikes while you are still holding your greatword with two hands.The caveat to that is I wouldn't be making an off-hand attack if I made an AoO with Armor Spikes. It's a primary attack in that instance.The FAQ however, states that you are using both hands to wield your two handed weapon and your "off-hand" is not available for any attacks. You are still wielding a weapon with both hands, so you have no "hands" left to be wielding anything else.is it in a FAQ?
citation please.
See SKR's first point here.
EDIT: Ninja'd.
Ok, and this doesn't invalidate my stance whatsoever.
You can swing with your sword (or glaive), remove a hand as a free action, use your armor spikes with your secondary attack, replace your hand as a free action, and be ready for AoO's with your reach weapon.
|
Design Manager
|
Of course that is the point, and here it is SKR answering to it"Well, it might invalidate it for a few levels, but once your character gets an iterative attack, the "attack once with a 2H weapon, attack again with my iterative attack using armor spikes or whatever" technique is perfectly valid under the rules."
See my earlier post about how dev quotes that pre-date a rule-altering FAQ are worth very little when a more recent FAQ introduces contradictory information. That quote from SKR came out a week before the current FAQ that brought up this discussion. Things change. See the great Monk Flurry debacle of 2012. Find me a dev quote clarifying this that was made after the FAQ and we can all call this one closed and go home.
|
|
Except for the fact that the entire point of the thread is about whether or not you can attack with it and thus whether or not you're considered to be wielding it.
Well, it might invalidate it for a few levels, but once your character gets an iterative attack, the "attack once with a 2H weapon, attack again with my iterative attack using armor spikes or whatever" technique is perfectly valid under the rules.If you could potentially be making an attack with it (or an AOO with it), you are wielding it. Good enough.If you can attack with it you are wielding it and therefore you can make AoO with it.
here it is, this solve the entire problem
/thread.
Of course that is the point, and here it is SKR answering to it
"Well, it might invalidate it for a few levels, but once your character gets an iterative attack, the "attack once with a 2H weapon, attack again with my iterative attack using armor spikes or whatever" technique is perfectly valid under the rules."
But that comment doesn't invalidate my stance, and isn't invalidated by my stance.
Nowhere in his comment did he say you could take the iterative attack while still holding onto the two-handed weapon with both hands.
And in light of the most recent FAQ on whether you can make two-weapon fighting attacks with armor spikes while using a two-handed weapon... it makes sense that for SKR's statement above to be true, you must remove a hand as a free action from the two-handed weapon, do your iterative attack with the armor spikes, then replace the hand as a free action to be threaten with your reach weapon.
The difference here is that the FAQ about Two-Weapon Fighting is referring to making SIMULTANEOUS attacks with spikey stuff, while the FAQ about changing your grip is talking about making SEPARATE, NOT SIMULTANEOUS attacks.
Attacks of Opportunity are not simultaneous with the attacks you make during your own round, so they don't apply to the first FAQ - no off-hand required.
|
|
The simultaneity is not part of the equation here.
The fact that you cannot make an attack with armor spikes during a two-weapon fighting full-attack ("because you have no "offhand" to use") more than implies that you need a free hand to use armor spikes.
You don't have a free hand for armor spikes if you are wielding a two-handed weapon.
In order to threaten anything, you must be wielding a weapon.
Therefore you cannot simultaneously wield armor spikes and a two-handed weapon. Regardless of whether it is a two-weapon fighting sequence or during a potential provocation for AoO.
No, you can't use spikes as one of your "off-hand" attacks during a TWF sequence. But you can, as a free action, let go one of your hands and as another free action, re-grab a 2H weapon.
So, not allowed:
Holding two swords, and making TWF attacks with them, AND simultaneously making additional attacks with your spikes as well.
Allowed:
Holding a 2H weapon, making attacks with it, ending your round, AND being able to make a spike attack as an AoO which is not simultaneous with your attacks on your round. These spikes can be armor spikes or gauntlet spikes (which require letting go of your 2H weapon with one hand, a free action, making your AoO, then putting your hand back on your 2H weapon, another free action).
I might argue that you can't take free actions like this on an opponent's turn (that's what Immediate actions are for), so maybe the gauntlet spikes won't work for that reason, but it's not an issue for armor spikes.
|
|
I might argue that you can't take free actions like this on an opponent's turn (that's what Immediate actions are for), so maybe the gauntlet spikes won't work for that reason, but it's not an issue for armor spikes.
How is not being able to make an interruptive free action (i.e. Immediate Action) when it isn't your turn to remove a hand from a two-handed weapon suddenly allow you to still take an AoO with armor spikes while you are wielding (thus threatening) with your two-handed weapon?
|
|
See my earlier post about how dev quotes that pre-date a rule-altering FAQ are worth very little when a more recent FAQ introduces contradictory information. That quote from SKR came out a week before the current FAQ that brought up this discussion. Things change. See the great Monk Flurry debacle of 2012. Find me a dev quote clarifying this that was made after the FAQ and we can all call this one closed and go home.
Of course that is the point, and here it is SKR answering to it"Well, it might invalidate it for a few levels, but once your character gets an iterative attack, the "attack once with a 2H weapon, attack again with my iterative attack using armor spikes or whatever" technique is perfectly valid under the rules."
I fail to see what the problem is (or for that matter, the point of this thread). The FAQ specifically addresses Two-Weapon Fighting and Two-Weapon Fighting only.
By what manner is anyone using this FAQ to say that it affects one's ability to make an AoO?
|
|
See my earlier post about how dev quotes that pre-date a rule-altering FAQ are worth very little when a more recent FAQ introduces contradictory information. That quote from SKR came out a week before the current FAQ that brought up this discussion. Things change. See the great Monk Flurry debacle of 2012. Find me a dev quote clarifying this that was made after the FAQ and we can all call this one closed and go home.
Of course that is the point, and here it is SKR answering to it"Well, it might invalidate it for a few levels, but once your character gets an iterative attack, the "attack once with a 2H weapon, attack again with my iterative attack using armor spikes or whatever" technique is perfectly valid under the rules."
I fail to see what the problem is (or for that matter, the point of this thread). The FAQ specifically addresses Two-Weapon Fighting and Two-Weapon Fighting only.
By what manner is anyone using this FAQ to say that it affects one's ability to make an AoO?
Rules, and FAQ's, aren't made in a vacuum. They can't be read in a vacuum.
You have to look at them in context with the entire rules set.
Part of the reasoning for the two-weapon fighting FAQ answer, is indicating that there is no hand available to be the "off-hand" when using both hands to wield a two-handed weapon.
When you take that in context with the entire rules set... you can easily see how that would impact what you can do with other weapon types while wielding a two-handed weapon.
Please refute the actual text I've typed above, instead of just a random drive-by insult on the question itself.
By what manner is anyone using this FAQ to say that it affects one's ability to make an AoO?
"I don't like it, therefore, it should be banned".
Sadly, it's a pretty common school of thought around here... And for some reason, some players don't like Armor Spikes... They have this illusion that it's too powerful or the opinion that it's too unrealistic (and we all know we need total and complete realism in a game about elves and gnomes killing dragons and zombies)
Except for the fact that the entire point of the thread is about whether or not you can attack with it and thus whether or not you're considered to be wielding it. And dev quotes that pre-date the official FAQ are counting for a little less these days. That quote was from 5 days before the offical FAQ. Anyone else notice that they changed the FAQ they just put up about two-handed weapons wielded in one hand? That FAQ was less than 2 weeks old before it was changed to say the exact opposite of what it had said originally. It'd be nice to have an official response to this question, if for no other reason than to mitigate table variation in organized play.
Well, it might invalidate it for a few levels, but once your character gets an iterative attack, the "attack once with a 2H weapon, attack again with my iterative attack using armor spikes or whatever" technique is perfectly valid under the rules.If you could potentially be making an attack with it (or an AOO with it), you are wielding it. Good enough.If you can attack with it you are wielding it and therefore you can make AoO with it.
here it is, this solve the entire problem
/thread.
I'm confused. SKR's quotes I pulled are from the thread in which the FAQ re: TWF was announced. He said that ruling shouldn't have any impact on one's ability to make AoO with either a two-handed weapon or armor spikes.
|
|
By what manner is anyone using this FAQ to say that it affects one's ability to make an AoO?"I don't like it, therefore, it should be banned".
Sadly, it's a pretty common school of thought around here... And for some reason, some players don't like Armor Spikes... They have this illusion that it's too powerful or the opinion that it's too unrealistic (and we all know we need total and complete realism in a game about elves and gnomes killing dragons and zombies)
Has nothing to do with liking it or not. I happen to like armor spikes. I think they are cool.
But I want clarification of this situation, because I feel RAW and the FAQ's are clear on how they should work together. Not everyone feels as I do, therefore its ambiguous.
How is not being able to make an interruptive free action (i.e. Immediate Action) when it isn't your turn to remove a hand from a two-handed weapon suddenly allow you to still take an AoO with armor spikes while you are wielding (thus threatening) with your two-handed weapon?
I might argue that you can't take free actions like this on an opponent's turn (that's what Immediate actions are for), so maybe the gauntlet spikes won't work for that reason, but it's not an issue for armor spikes.
You can do that to draw and arrow and make AoO with bows. *shrug*
|
|
I'm confused. SKR's quotes I pulled are from the thread in which the FAW re: TWF was announced. He said that ruling shouldn't have any impact on one's ability to make AoO with either a two-handed weapon or armor spikes.Except for the fact that the entire point of the thread is about whether or not you can attack with it and thus whether or not you're considered to be wielding it. And dev quotes that pre-date the official FAQ are counting for a little less these days. That quote was from 5 days before the offical FAQ. Anyone else notice that they changed the FAQ they just put up about two-handed weapons wielded in one hand? That FAQ was less than 2 weeks old before it was changed to say the exact opposite of what it had said originally. It'd be nice to have an official response to this question, if for no other reason than to mitigate table variation in organized play.
Well, it might invalidate it for a few levels, but once your character gets an iterative attack, the "attack once with a 2H weapon, attack again with my iterative attack using armor spikes or whatever" technique is perfectly valid under the rules.If you could potentially be making an attack with it (or an AOO with it), you are wielding it. Good enough.If you can attack with it you are wielding it and therefore you can make AoO with it.
here it is, this solve the entire problem
/thread.
You do realize that the post you linked to, and the citation you quoted actually didn’t say anything about AoO’s, right? It talked specifically and only about iterative attacks.
|
|
You can do that to draw and arrow and make AoO with bows. *shrug*How is not being able to make an interruptive free action (i.e. Immediate Action) when it isn't your turn to remove a hand from a two-handed weapon suddenly allow you to still take an AoO with armor spikes while you are wielding (thus threatening) with your two-handed weapon?
I might argue that you can't take free actions like this on an opponent's turn (that's what Immediate actions are for), so maybe the gauntlet spikes won't work for that reason, but it's not an issue for armor spikes.
Drawing and notching an arrow is not considered a free action.
It is considered a non-action action, or rather part of the attack action of shooting the bow.
That is not a valid argument.
You do realize that the post you linked to, and the citation you quoted actually didn’t say anything about AoO’s, right? It talked specifically and only about iterative attacks.
this is not quite true. SKR stated that you can make one attack with a greatsword and make the iterative with the armor spikes while you are still holding your greatword with two hands.The caveat to that is I wouldn't be making an off-hand attack if I made an AoO with Armor Spikes. It's a primary attack in that instance.The FAQ however, states that you are using both hands to wield your two handed weapon and your "off-hand" is not available for any attacks. You are still wielding a weapon with both hands, so you have no "hands" left to be wielding anything else.is it in a FAQ?
citation please.
See SKR's first point here.
EDIT: Ninja'd.
Also, note his last point in that post.
Finally, does this have any effect on threatening and attacks of opportunity, e.g. when I used a longspear to attack in a round, can I still threaten with unarmed strikes and make attacks into adjacent fields?I don't think this ruling has any effect on that; AOOs are outside the normal sequence of actions you can perform on your turn.
You needed to keep reading.
Rules, and FAQ's, aren't made in a vacuum. They can't be read in a vacuum.
You have to look at them in context with the entire rules set.
OK, as requested, here's your context without vacuum, with the entire rules set:
The FAQ that disallows getting extra attacks using spikes in addition to TWF fighting is an attempt mechanically balance the number of attacks characters can get in a round. TWF allows one extra attack, additional feats in the TWF line can extend that to several extra attacks. Also allowing armor spikes to EVEN MORE attacks is potentially unbalanced. TWF is enough attacks, mechanically - adding more is a bad idea.
Think of the off-hand attacks as if they are "attack slots". With enough feats, you can get up to 3 "slots" with which you can make off-hand attacks. Wearing spikes on your armor does not increase the number of attack "slots" you are allowed. It doesn't actually require you to use your "hand" to hit someone with armor spikes; it merely requires you to have the opportunity, the "slot", with which to make an attack.
The OP wasn't talking about stacking more attacks into his own round. He wasn't even talking about getting additional AoOs. All he wants is the ability to use armor spikes to do exactly what the game allows them to do - make an AoO at an adjacent foe that provokes. Armor spikes already do that. If you pay the extra cost to put spikes on your armor, you already CAN use them to make an AoO against an adjacent, provoking foe.
But the OP wants to do that while still holding a Two-Handed weapon. Fine. Is he adding extra attack "slots"? No - he is still only making one AoO. Is he changing the armor spike rules? No - he is still only making an AoO against an adjacent, provoking foe, exactly like he could do if that were a longsword in his hand instead of a 2H reach weapon.
The rules and FAQs all seem to allow it. The FAQ that prohibits armor spikes as part of a Two-Weapon Fighting sequence does not apply here because we're not even talking about Two-Weapon Fighting.
|
|
Rules, and FAQ's, aren't made in a vacuum. They can't be read in a vacuum.
You have to look at them in context with the entire rules set.
OK, as requested, here's your context without vacuum, with the entire rules set:
The FAQ that disallows getting extra attacks using spikes in addition to TWF fighting is an attempt mechanically balance the number of attacks characters can get in a round. TWF allows one extra attack, additional feats in the TWF line can extend that to several extra attacks. Also allowing armor spikes to EVEN MORE attacks is potentially unbalanced. TWF is enough attacks, mechanically - adding more is a bad idea.
Think of the off-hand attacks as if they are "attack slots". With enough feats, you can get up to 3 "slots" with which you can make off-hand attacks. Wearing spikes on your armor does not increase the number of attack "slots" you are allowed. It doesn't actually require you to use your "hand" to hit someone with armor spikes; it merely requires you to have the opportunity, the "slot", with which to make an attack.
The OP wasn't talking about stacking more attacks into his own round. He wasn't even talking about getting additional AoOs. All he wants is the ability to use armor spikes to do exactly what the game allows them to do - make an AoO at an adjacent foe that provokes. Armor spikes already do that. If you pay the extra cost to put spikes on your armor, you already CAN use them to make an AoO against an adjacent, provoking foe.
But the OP wants to do that while still holding a Two-Handed weapon. Fine. Is he adding extra attack "slots"? No - he is still only making one AoO. Is he changing the armor spike rules? No - he is still only making an AoO against an adjacent, provoking foe, exactly like he could do if that were a longsword in his hand instead of a 2H reach weapon.
The rules and FAQs all seem to allow it. The FAQ that prohibits armor spikes as part of a Two-Weapon Fighting sequence does not apply here because we're...
It does affect the rules. It removes one of the game balancing penalties of having a reach weapon (not being able to attack at 5').
The rules and FAQs do not all seem to allow it. Most of them to discuss it specifically, directly or explicitly.
The FAQ on two-weapon fighting indicates that you can't wield an armor spike without a free hand to do so. You don't have a free hand to wield armor spikes when both are being used to wield a two-handed weapon.
That's how it applies.
I can respect that you disagree, but don't be rude and flatly ignore all my posts and such just because you do. I expect you to respect my right to disagree as well.
You can do that to draw and arrow and make AoO with bows. *shrug*How is not being able to make an interruptive free action (i.e. Immediate Action) when it isn't your turn to remove a hand from a two-handed weapon suddenly allow you to still take an AoO with armor spikes while you are wielding (thus threatening) with your two-handed weapon?
I might argue that you can't take free actions like this on an opponent's turn (that's what Immediate actions are for), so maybe the gauntlet spikes won't work for that reason, but it's not an issue for armor spikes.
Drawing and notching an arrow is not considered a free action.
It is considered a non-action action, or rather part of the attack action of shooting the bow.
That is not a valid argument.
Drawing ammunition for use with a ranged weapon (such as arrows, bolts, sling bullets, or shuriken) is a free action.
3) Combat chapter says, So, yes, a free action.
Drawing an arrow is not the same as nocking an arrow.
Not an Action: Some activities are so minor that they are not even considered free actions. They literally don't take any time at all to do and are considered an inherent part of doing something else, such as nocking an arrow as part of an attack with a bow.
|
|
Then you could not use your bow for more than one AoO. And you just make sure you have an arrow drawn at the end of your turn so you can threaten with your bow for Snap Shot when it isn't your turn.
But I would imagine most GM's would allow the "drawing of ammo" free action to be done as part of the AoO.
I feel that since the drawing, nocking, and shooting of a bow is more or less a sequence leading to the same action, that the free action to draw an arrow is not the same in relation to the interrupt I was talking about before.
Its the intent of the wielder. If his intent is to be threatening with the bow, then the drawing of an arrow, nocking, and shooting is all part of the AoO and you can make multiple AoO's if you have Combat Reflexes.
However, if the intent of the Wielder is to threaten with his Cestus or Armor Spikes, he could not then threaten with his Bow for Snap Shot, as he needs two hands to wield his bow. Same is true for two-handed weapons.
In other words the free action for engaging or disengaging a hand from a two-handed weapon is not equal to the free action for drawing an arrow when you are considering which weapon one can threaten with for the purposes of AoO provoking actions by the enemy.
You can make multiple AoO with a bow, Snap Shot (the Improved Snap Shot), and Combat Reflexes. It seems rather nonsensical that they'd deign feats that can't be used (Snap Shot/Improved and then being unable to make AoO). When that's happened in the past, they've corrected the oversight (See: Prone Shooter).
Why should it seem to be any easier to move a hand to a quiver, grab an arrow, and nock it than it is to grab the hilt of your weapon with your second hand (or release your second hand from the hilt of your weapon)?
I understand that free actions ordinarily can only be taken on your turn. There are exceptions to that. Drawing an arrow is one. It hardly seems a stretch to me that shifting grips could be another.
Regardless, the need to shift grips is, in my opinion, ultimately irrelevant, since I don't see any reason to think you can't still threaten with Armor Spikes, just because you're holding a two-handed weapon.
|
|
I understand your point, however:
If you agree, that you must remove your grip from a two-handed weapon, to use something like armor spikes, then:
You have to extrapolate that you aren't wielding them, and thus not threatening with them.
As such, you can't choose in the heat of the moment to suddenly be threatening with a weapon.
If you aren't threatening with a weapon, you can't make AoO's with it. Its that simple.
My postulation is that you have to choose which weapon you are threatening with when it isn't your turn. Are you threatening with the two-handed weapon, or with the armor spikes?
If you don't agree with the fact that you must remove your grip from a two-handed weapon to use armor spikes, then that's our impasse.
Then I would direct you to my reasoning above, why I feel that the new FAQ indicates that you do need to.
|
|
Rules, and FAQ's, aren't made in a vacuum. They can't be read in a vacuum.
You have to look at them in context with the entire rules set.
Part of the reasoning for the two-weapon fighting FAQ answer, is indicating that there is no hand available to be the "off-hand" when using both hands to wield a two-handed weapon.
When you take that in context with the entire rules set... you can easily see how that would impact what you can do with other weapon types while wielding a two-handed weapon.
Please refute the actual text I've typed above, instead of just a random drive-by insult on the question itself.
The FAQ addresses what you may or may not do with regards to Two-Weapon Fighting, not iterative attacks or AoO. To say that the FAQ about Two-Weapon Fighting in and of itself raises questions or changes the understanding of how iterative attacks or AoO works is a gross misunderstanding.
I'm not saying that one might have a question or two that is raised from the FAQ, but to say that we must now question how iterative attacks and AoO works just because there was a FAQ post about Two-Weapon Fighting is irresponsible.
In short, the FAQ is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not you can threaten with both a long spear (for example) AND armored spikes, because the ability (or not) to threaten with both weapons is completely segregated from an FAQ telling you that you may not TWF with the long spear and armored spikes.
The question in this thread has everything to do with whether or not armor spikes must have an actual hand available to utilize them or not. If not, then this thread is moot because it does not matter if both hands are gripping a two-handed weapon, the armored spikes are still available for use.
If, on the other hand, armored spikes do require an actual hand be available, then the FAQ response of what type of action it is to remove a hand from a two-handed weapon will drive this discussion, not the FAQ of whether or not you can TWF with a greatsword and armored spikes.
It does affect the rules. It removes one of the game balancing penalties of having a reach weapon (not being able to attack at 5').
The rules and FAQs do not all seem to allow it. Most of them to discuss it specifically, directly or explicitly.
I didn't say it doesn't affect the rules. I even referenced rules.
I am not suggesting that using armor spikes lets the two-handed weapon do something it otherwise cannot do. I was, in fact, suggesting that using armor spikes allows the armor-wearer to do something that armor spikes is capable of doing.
A guy with a high-damage, magical, x1.5 STR polearm settling for a d6 of armor spike damage has definitely chosen an inferior method of making an AoO.
Is he able to make that AoO against an adjacent foe? Yes.
Is he using his polearm to do it? No.
Is he using armor spikes to do what armor spikes can always do? Yes.
Is it unbalanced? No - he paid extra for armor spikes so he should get a benefit from them. If a guy with a longsword pays for armor spikes, that guy can make an (inferior) AoO with them, so there is no reason to prevent the guy with a glaive from getting the same benefit (an inferior AoO) for the same price, the cost of the armor spikes.
The FAQ on two-weapon fighting indicates that you can't wield an armor spike without a free hand to do so.
Explain to me how it makes sense that you need a free HAND to slam a nearby enemy with spikey shoulderpads?
It doesn't.
That FAQ was very specifically aimed at stopping two-weapon-fighting from gaining even more extra attacks during their full attack action.
You don't have a free hand to wield armor spikes when both are being used to wield a two-handed weapon.
And I reiterate, nobody on God's Green Earth needs a free hand to slam their shoulder (with or without spikes) into an adjacent enemy. Heck, a man with no arms or hands at all can body slam an enemy. If he wears spikey stuff, then that body slam might do some damage.
The FAQ references two-weapon-fighting for a reason, and there is no reason to extend the FAQ beyond the specific case of two-weapon-fighting.
I can respect that you disagree, but don't be rude and flatly ignore all my posts and such just because you do. I expect you to respect my right to disagree as well.
I didn't flatly ignore anything, and if stating my case is rude, then I reserve the right to be rude. I respect your right to disagree with whatever you want, but if we're going to debate a rule in a "Rules Questions" forum, then I'm going to do my best to explain the rule until those posting in the thread understand it (or until they convince me that I'm wrong).
It seems that neither has yet occurred, so here I am, restating my position.
I'm sorry if you find that rude; it's not meant to be.
What about Improved unarmed strike? If you are holding a two handed weapon you can not kick someone?
My character has armor spike and IUS. Can he kick someone with a spike on his boot?
|
Crash_00 believes that just because the devs reached the same conclusion that he did (no 2HW in TWF) by referencing the same section on weapon categories that he did, that they must have reached that conclusion for the same reasons he did, i.e. the 'Schrödinger's Hand' theory.
But the weapon categories only reference 'off hand' and 'primary hand' as regards TWF. We know this because 'off hand' isn't a rule outside TWF, and hasn't been since 3.0. 3.5 changed it; in 3.0 the 'off hand' was whichever hand that character wasn't dominant with, say, left hand, while the 'primary hand' was the right hand, or vice versa.
3.5 took those rules away, took the Ambidexterity feat away (as it no longer did anything) and all creatures were effectively ambidextrous. The only remaining use for the term rules-wise is in TWF, when referring to the extra attack(s) gained from TWF, and the conditions which apply (reduced Str bonus to damage, attack penalties etc.).
That doesn't mean the phrase 'off hand' can't be used as fluff, to refer to the hand which isn't holding your main weapon.
In the 3.0 equivalent of the 3.5 (and PF) section on light/one-handed/two-handed weapons, it had no rules about primary/off hand, just rules about how many (real) hands are needed to use a weapon, along with noting that light weapons are easier to use in the off hand. When the same section was re-written for 3.5 it helpfully clarified what happened re: Str bonus when using weapons in the off hand, but since 'off hand' was removed from the rules except in reference to TWF, the only thing that the weapon category rules can be referencing when they talk about 'primary' and 'off' hands are the rules for TWF!
The only aberration remaining was the description of the buckler which remained unchanged between editions even though the meaning of 'off hand' as a rules term had changed. But even then 'off hand' was meant as fluff, with the assumption that the buckler would be strapped to the non-dominant hand, in the same way that 'off hand attack' is called that because the usual way to TWF is using hands, even though there is no actual rule which states that attacks in TWF are required to be wielded by a hand. So when the buckler talks about losing its AC bonus, it means if you attack with a weapon in the same hand as the arm the buckler is strapped to, not any old off hand attack.
When Jason is referencing the weapon category rules to show why a 2HW can't be used in TWF because it uses both 'primary' and 'off' hand, he is still talking only about TWF, just like the text is only talking about TWF when using 'primary' and 'off' hand.
About armour spikes: despite Mr. Moreland's statement to the contrary, you don't need a hand to use armour spikes. Although most weapons require a hand, some don't. Those that don't still apply the appropriate Str bonus to damage as if they were using the correct number of hands as described for light/1H/2H.
You don't have to 'declare' which weapons you are wielding. 'Wielding' is not a rules term, and actually means different things in different contexts. Sometimes it means 'hold', sometimes it means 'hold a weapon in such a way that you could immediately attack with it', and sometimes it means 'actually attack with'. You don't need to 'wield' a weapon to threaten with it (whatever 'wield' might mean in this context), you just need to be able to attack with it without needing to take any action before that attack, even a free action. Although most weapons must be held in the correct number of hands in order to attack (and therefore threaten), some only need to be worn and have a hand free (like spiked gauntlets), some only need to be worn (like armour spikes or boulder helmet) to threaten. If any weapon threatens it can be used to execute an AoO, but even if you have twelve weapons which threaten you still only get a single AoO per opportunity.
Wow. 91 posts since last night. And all about one thing.
You keep saying that rules cannot be read in a vacuum. Neither should they be taken out of context.
That entire FAQ you're quoting deals with 2 handed weapons, and two weapon fighting. In a full-attack sequence. On your turn. It's irrelevant to Attacks of Opportunity and threatening.
The word "any", which keeps getting quoted and bolded, refers to any attacks on your turn in a full attack sequence with weapons you're wielding.
Applying it to anything outside those specific parameters for that specific FAQ is not "reading it in a vacuum". It's applying a specific answer to a specific question, and not stretching it to apply to things it wasn't meant to.
Here's a for instance. I'll use a single weapon and eliminate the spiked armor from the equation for a second.
After my attack, I am hot and sweat trickles into my eye. I take a hand off of my longspear to wipe my brow. Do I all of a sudden lose the ability to threaten an AoO with that weapon because I'm not "wielding" it properly with a two-handed grip?
Second scenario:
A girallion closes distance and attacks me. I have a longspear in both hands, and spiked armor, and I don't see him until he's within 5' range, so I don't attack him at 10'. Are you saying I lose the ability to threaten with the armor spikes when he's 5' away simply because both hands are currently on my longspear?
Your logic says yes, mine says hell no in both scenarios.
The only reason the FAQ is "raising more questions" is because it's being taken out of context.
And proficiency with the weapon, else take penalties.
|
i don't see why , if during a normal round you can use a free action to take your hand off your greatsword and punch someone with armored spikes or a spiked gauntlet, that you can't reactively do the same thing as someone is running past you to take an attack of opportunity.
if a fighter/monk is holding a reach weapon, or someone with improved unarmed strike, they still count as threatening the areas around them. They would be able to get the attack of opportunity , albeit with a kick, a headbutt, a knee. But a guy in spikey armored plates can't ?
::shrug:: just seems a little frivolously knit picky to me.