Some Questions About Armor Spikes


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 137 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

I'm confused about the rules question being addressed.

I believe the question is "When wielding a two-handed reach weapon and wearing armor spikes, does the character threaten both the reach squares and adjacent squares?"

Since using the reach weapon uses both "hands" and since you cannot use the free action of releasing or grasping the reach weapon during an AoO, the character does not threaten both reach and adjacent squares.

The character must declare at the end of his turn to either grasp the reach weapon in both "hands" to threaten reach squares or release the reach weapon with one "hand" to threaten adjacent squares. This threat range would be fixed until the character's next turn.


@Durngrun Yes it does, if you use a Light Weapon for an AoO then you use a light weapons worth of effort and so on. An AoO isn't an effortless attack with any weapon you have on you; you have to be capable of wielding that weapon with the required amount of effort.

If I am carrying my Long spear with one hand I cannot make an AoO with it as I cannot wield it with one hand and you don't get a Free action with an AoO to grasp it with the free hand. I have the weapon in hand but not the amount of effort needed to wield it.

If I am wielding a 2HW i.e. attacking with it, I cannot use an ordinary Light weapon at the same time even if, as is the case with armour spikes, I am carrying it - I don't have that amount of effort available. Therefore I cannot threaten with it so I can't make an AoO with it.

If we have to bring up TWF then no, as he has both a Light weapon and a One handed Weapon's worth of effort freely available.


@Bacondale It's the use of the word "hands" which causes the problem. They think as the spikes aren't a "handheld" weapon they don't follow the same rules as everything else.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I didn't read through this whole thread by I am noticing some misinformation.

If you are wielding a two-handed weapon and have armor spike you still threaten with both, as threatening primarily pertains to whom you can make AoO against. The metaphorical "hands" issue dealt specifically with Two Weapon Fighting, it does not apply to what square you can threaten or what weapons can be used to make Attacks of Opportunity as AoO are outside of the normal flow of your turn.

So to clairfy, if you have armor spikes and a two handed weapon both threaten. You could potentially take an AoO with either. When making attacks on your turn you cannot TWF with both a two-handed weapon and any other manufactured weapon as a two handed weapon uses up both "hands". You could however not two weapon fight, but use iterative attacks and make the attacks with the two-handed weapon and then with armor spikes and then with the two handed weapon again if you had the required BAB to make 2 iterative (3 total) attacks.


CountofUndolpho wrote:

@Durngrun Yes it does, if you use a Light Weapon for an AoO then you use a light weapons worth of effort and so on. An AoO isn't an effortless attack with any weapon you have on you; you have to be capable of wielding that weapon with the required amount of effort.

If I am carrying my Long spear with one hand I cannot make an AoO with it as I cannot wield it with one hand and you don't get a Free action with an AoO to grasp it with the free hand. I have the weapon in hand but not the amount of effort needed to wield it.

If I am wielding a 2HW i.e. attacking with it, I cannot use an ordinary Light weapon at the same time even if, as is the case with armour spikes, I am carrying it - I don't have that amount of effort available. Therefore I cannot threaten with it so I can't make an AoO with it.

If we have to bring up TWF then no, as he has both a Light weapon and a One handed Weapon's worth of effort freely available.

Explain to me why two-handed fighting prevents an AoO but two-weapon fighting doesn't, as I am still unsure as to what you mean.


@Durngrun I'm sorry I've messed up a bit on that haven't I?

I think I was wrong you'd only threaten with the weapons you were wielding so in the case of 2WF your Primary or your off hand weapon. The only way armour spikes cause damage without "effort" is when grappling.

Grand Lodge

You keep using two-weapon fighting rules, and restrictions, for things unrelated to two weapon fighting.

Primary and Off-hand, only exist during the full attack action, to two weapon fight.


@BBT No I don't. I have only used the terms primary and off-hand to answer a specific question about 2WF in my last post.

your logical fallacy is STRAWMAN

Otherwise I have used the terms wielding and effort as well as the descriptors Light, One-Handed and Two-Handed Weapons. Specifically to avoid your strawman argument. Equally James Maitlands reasoning includes no reference to 2WF whatsoever.

I apologise for the title of the thread where we first had this discussion but it's a thread title not a summary of all my posts on Armour Spikes and AoO's.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

off-hand is only a TWF rule, as with hands of effort only being used up during a specific instance of a full attack, namely either TWF or THF.

if you are not making a full attack then the rules do not apply. you do not need to select which weapon you are wielding at any given time for the use of AOO.

during a full attack, each iterative is also counted as their own attack, meaning you can stab someone with a spear and then use armor spikes with your next iterative. the only questionable aspect is whether or not you can stab someone with a spear and then your next iterative use armor spikers and TWF an unarmed attack.

but yes you threaten all reach and normal squares. why? the rules don't say you need to specifically say what weapon you are wielding, in fact it suggests that you specifically don't have to with the full attack rules.


CountofUndolpho wrote:

@BBT No I don't. I have only used the terms primary and off-hand to answer a specific question about 2WF in my last post.

your logical fallacy is STRAWMAN

Otherwise I have used the terms wielding and effort as well as the descriptors Light, One-Handed and Two-Handed Weapons. Specifically to avoid your strawman argument. Equally James Maitlands reasoning includes no reference to 2WF whatsoever.

I apologise for the title of the thread where we first had this discussion but it's a thread title not a summary of all my posts on Armour Spikes and AoO's.

Not a strawman at all. The base of your entire argument is the FAQ on TWFing with a 2-handed weapon and armor spikes. So pointing out that that FAQ is utterly irrelevant when not gaining extra attacks is germane to the argument.


thorin001 wrote:
Not a strawman at all. The base of your entire argument is the FAQ on TWFing with a 2-handed weapon and armor spikes. So pointing out that that FAQ is utterly irrelevant when not gaining extra attacks is germane to the argument.
Well, this seems clear you can't threaten (and make AoOs) with armour spikes if you don't have a free hand.
Paizo developer wrote:
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.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Rikkan wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
Not a strawman at all. The base of your entire argument is the FAQ on TWFing with a 2-handed weapon and armor spikes. So pointing out that that FAQ is utterly irrelevant when not gaining extra attacks is germane to the argument.
Well, this seems clear you can't threaten (and make AoOs) with armour spikes if you don't have a free hand.
Paizo developer wrote:
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.

that as mentioned earlier is both really old(prior to the listed FAQ), and not official ruling from the developers(which the listed FAQ is).


You could make your first attack with a two-handed weapon and the iterative attacks with armor spikes, because you never attack with both at the same time. Now why should I not be able to threaten with my armor spikes if I can attack with them?


Bandw2 wrote:
that as mentioned earlier is both really old(prior to the listed FAQ), and not official ruling from the developers(which the listed FAQ is).

The FAQ doesn't contradict it though. And while it is not an official rule source like they faq, I personally don't like to completely dismiss Paizo developers when they are talking about their own game.

Scarab Sages

Rikkan wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
that as mentioned earlier is both really old(prior to the listed FAQ), and not official ruling from the developers(which the listed FAQ is).
The FAQ doesn't contradict it though. And while it is not an official rule source like they faq, I personally don't like to completely dismiss Paizo developers when they are talking about their own game.

But the developers do change their minds from time to time. See the Furry of Blows blog, and the subsequent Blog reversing it. This post was from 2011, and was never an official FAQ or blog entry, so there was never a need to reverse it.


It's especially contradictory considering if you go to the original 1000+ post therad they specifically talk about whether or not this affects AoO and threatening (as part of the fallout of the FAQ) and I believe a developer confirms the position that the FAQ doesn't affect your ability to use different weapons during an AoO or your ability to threaten.

However, as that thread is so long I do not have the time or motivation to go find the post I am remembering.


@Claxon do you have a link to that developer post? I haven't been able to find it.

edit:Oops! I just read the I can't be bothered to find it bit. Oh well.


Can anyone point me to the rule which says you can use armour spikes to make an attack whilst your hands are full? c.f. Monk Unarmed Strikes, Babazou Beard, Seaman's Knife etc.

Grand Lodge

I've got a simple question for Blackbloodtroll, If my Slayer is wearing spiked chain and he is grappled by a bad guy how much damage is inflicted on the bad guy.

can normal weapon enchantments be placed on armor spikes.

Paizo Glitterati Robot

Removed an unhelpful post.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CountofUndolpho wrote:
Can anyone point me to the rule which says you can use armour spikes to make an attack whilst your hands are full? c.f. Monk Unarmed Strikes, Babazou Beard, Seaman's Knife etc.

Armor spikes do not require a physical hand to use. That's all you really need.

You cannot two weapon fight with them with a two-handed weapon because you only have two "hands" worth of effort you can use at one time. Since two weapon fighting with a two-handed weapon and another weapon would be at least 3 hands worth of effort you cannot do it. However, you could two weapon fight with a one handed weapon and armor spikes without any issue at all.

Saul The Punisher wrote:

I've got a simple question for Blackbloodtroll, If my Slayer is wearing spiked chain and he is grappled by a bad guy how much damage is inflicted on the bad guy.

can normal weapon enchantments be placed on armor spikes.

Armor spikes can be enchanted just as you would any other light melee weapon. So anything that say a kukri qualifies for armor spikes should pretty much qualify for. Except for things require slashing instead of piercing.

Quote:
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.

Grand Lodge

Claxon has it.


PRD/d20pfsrd wrote:

"A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full."

"A barbazu beard can be used as an off-hand weapon that requires no hands to use;"

"A sea-knife can be used as a light melee weapon when the wielder is swimming, flying, or prone. This allows the wielder to use a two-handed weapon, or wield a weapon with one hand and carry a shield, and still make off-hand attacks with the sea-knife."

"A thorn bracer can be used to make an offhand attack if you aren’t wielding a weapon or shield in that hand. You can attack with these bracers even while holding objects in your hands."

All these weapons use "no hands" and yet have specifics of how they can be used with items in your hands - odd or bizarre but the info is there. Armour spikes don't say anything about it; they are treated as light weapons, they cannot be used before or after "another off-hand weapon(sic)" is all that's said.

So:

Various non developers post to say you can do something not stated in the rule books.
A Developer makes a post stating you can't do that thing.

Bearing in mind Armour spikes are an invention of fantasy artists rather than a Real World item and so we have nothing to base their usage on.

Is the only reason so many people believe the "treat them as always on daggers for AoO" because that's how it worked in D&D 3.5?

I mean really, no kidding is this the reason?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

notice how all of those weapons don't JUST say they require no hands?

I never played 3.5, ADnD straight to pathfinder.

the dev post was prior to the FAQ, the FAQ is obviously what they as a whole decided on the matter.

the unarmed strike thing btw, they make it clear because like 80-90% of people who first start the game think it means punching only.

i don't understand why a thorn bracer is relevant.

Barbazu can only be used as an off-hand weapon.

the Sea Knife specifically calls out when it is counted as a weapon and when it can be used for off-hand attacks. You cannot use a sea knife while standing basically.

Grand Lodge

CountofUndolpho wrote:
PRD/d20pfsrd wrote:

"A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full."

"A barbazu beard can be used as an off-hand weapon that requires no hands to use;"

"A sea-knife can be used as a light melee weapon when the wielder is swimming, flying, or prone. This allows the wielder to use a two-handed weapon, or wield a weapon with one hand and carry a shield, and still make off-hand attacks with the sea-knife."

"A thorn bracer can be used to make an offhand attack if you aren’t wielding a weapon or shield in that hand. You can attack with these bracers even while holding objects in your hands."

All these weapons use "no hands" and yet have specifics of how they can be used with items in your hands - odd or bizarre but the info is there. Armour spikes don't say anything about it; they are treated as light weapons, they cannot be used before or after "another off-hand weapon(sic)" is all that's said.

So:

Various non developers post to say you can do something not stated in the rule books.
A Developer makes a post stating you can't do that thing.

Bearing in mind Armour spikes are an invention of fantasy artists rather than a Real World item and so we have nothing to base their usage on.

Is the only reason so many people believe the "treat them as always on daggers for AoO" because that's how it worked in D&D 3.5?

I mean really, no kidding is this the reason?

leather vambraces (like the thorn bracer) is on the forearm which is where a weapon would go and the weapons are obviously weapons that are wielded like so. These specifically need to be called out to say they act like weapons because they're in the place a weapon would go.

Armor spikes are on the armor as a whole and not in the vicinity of where a weapon is so they don't need to be called out as such.


Yes I noticed in fact it - was the point I was making - glad you spotted it.

There is a FAQ on Armour Spikes and AoO?

A thorn bracer is a weapon that doesn't require hands as a bracer is worn on the forearm it's relevant because you can hold something in your hand and still attack with it.

I forgot the Boulder Helmet from the ARG which would support your point, as it at no point mentions how it can be used in conjunction with other weapons and is obviously a weapon that can be used whilst holding something else without specifically saying so.

I have been playing D&D since ~1977 I only played a modicum of 3.5 before switching to Pathfinder - kids and work and all that.

So:

Various non developers post to say you can do something not stated in the rule books.
A Developer makes a post stating you can't do that thing.

Bearing in mind Armour spikes are an invention of fantasy artists rather than a Real World item and so we have nothing to base their usage on.

Why do you believe it?


@claudekennilol On what do you base your supposition that Armour spikes are on the armour as a whole?


graystone wrote:
CountofUndolpho wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
That is complete house rule territory.

Polite translation "I disagree with your interpretation of the rules" that's ok many people agree, many people disagree there are numerous threads that go through the bickering discussion.

Please feel free to play what rules you like at your table
No, it's totally 100% a house-rule. You are mixing up your two weapon fighting rules with non-two weapon rules. There is NOTHING stopping someone with a BAB +6 from making a reach attack with a pole arm and then making a second attack with their spiked armor. The pretend, imaginary hands unwritten rule FAQ only effects two weapon fighting.

This is true. But do note that there was the intention to change it so you can't, for example, use a reach weapon and still threated with he armor spikes. Thanks to Shelyn that was not covered int he FAQ:


CountofUndolpho wrote:
CountofUndolpho wrote:

Sorry Ciretose I think crash00 was right I'd already quoted the answer I was basically working towards in a previous thread.

Mark Maitland (Developer) on exactly this subject:

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.

Emphasis mine.

Yes, but this is not an official change so people can pretty much ignore that bad ruling.

Grand Lodge

CountofUndolpho wrote:
@claudekennilol On what do you base your supposition that Armour spikes are on the armour as a whole?

It's a logical extension of the implication of "adding them to your armor". Nowhere does it say that the spikes that are only on a specific part of armor. They're not called "gauntlet spikes" (or brass knuckles). They are "on the armor." That they can be added as damage on a successful grapple attack (and that this entry is called out in addition to light/1h weapons) implies that is very different from a traditional light or 1h weapon.

And while it may not be historically accurate (or may be for all I know, I work on software and know nothing about medieval history), doing an image search for "armor spikes" shows armor with spikes all over it--though this isn't really part of the argument, so take it for what you will.


To use them to add extra damage to a successful grapple attack they are a Martial weapon non proficiency means -4 to grapple. So not completely different to other weapons.

The spikes do not cause extra damage when you are grappled or swallowed or hit by a natural attack (see Barbed Vest whose barbs are all over but covered by flaps.)

Nowhere does it say on which part of the armour the spikes are or indeed any other details about them. This is just a cyclical argument.

If you are in IT then you know how to scan a Google search for real things rather than made up things, are any of those spiky images of real armour?


Nicos wrote:
Yes, but this is not an official change so people can pretty much ignore that bad ruling.

So that's not an official change to not an official usage. But there are no developers opinion's or rules for that usage so it's not actually a change per se.

Grand Lodge

CountofUndolpho wrote:

If you are in IT then you know how to scan a Google search for real things rather than made up things, are any of those spiky images of real armour?

Using my eyes (which has nothing to do with IT as Software Engineer->IT only to people that aren't Software Engineers) I can see that while most of them are not, some of them are real.


CountofUndolpho wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Yes, but this is not an official change so people can pretty much ignore that bad ruling.
So that's not an official change to not an official usage. But there are no developers opinion's or rules for that usage so it's not actually a change per se.

DO you have any rule that support your view?


Any links to authentic armour with spikes? I only ask as I have never found any. You can message them if you don't want to clutter up the thread.


Nicos wrote:
DO you have any rule that support your view?

No I have a post from a developer do you have a rule to support your view?


CountofUndolpho wrote:
Nicos wrote:
DO you have any rule that support your view?
No I have a post from a developer do you have a rule to support your view?

Yes, the AoO rules in the CRB. Do note that your Quote is old and was never made into a rule, they already have answered several FAQs (changes actually) on the issue but the rule suggested in that post was never made into the rules even after several threads with 1000+ post with heavy involvements of the devs.

In the same vein SKR one said that they were planning to change the way spellcasting while grappled work, but they have never done it so the rule is still the old rule.

Grand Lodge

CountofUndolpho wrote:
Any links to authentic armour with spikes? I only ask as I have never found any. You can message them if you don't want to clutter up the thread.

Yeah, search for 'bear combat suit' and you'll find something from the 1800s. I'm sure there are other obscure artifacts I could find if I search hard enough. Like I said above, this is not part of the argument and shouldn't be dwelled on.

This is a fantasy game. And they are called "armor spikes" not "only on the hand spikes".

Grand Lodge

Armor Spikes require no hand.

Here, is Jason Bulmahn, Lead Designer, noting that you can wield a Shield, Longsword, and Armor Spikes, at the same time.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
CountofUndolpho wrote:


There is a FAQ on Armour Spikes and AoO?

no there's a FAQ on Armor Spikes' and two-handed weapon's interaction. note how they didn't note any change to how AoO are made and they only decided to effect TWF rules.

The developer comment WAS ON THIS SUBJECT, THE DEVS DECIDED TO NOT CHANGE IT.


@Nicos AoO rules state you have to able to make an attack into the square to threaten it - that is my point.

@claudekennilol A bear combat suit isn't armour. I think its relevant because it would give us an idea of how they work.

@BBT Yes I know; I haven't at any point said that they need a hand and in fact have stated that they don't need hands.

@Bandw2 We aren't discussing 2WF and THERE IS NO NEED TO SHOUT. Perhaps because they thought it was obvious that you need to be wielding a weapon to be able to attack with it?

CountofUndolpho wrote:

If I am carrying my Long spear with one hand I cannot make an AoO with it as I cannot wield it with one hand and you don't get a Free action with an AoO to grasp it with the free hand. I have the weapon in hand but not the amount of effort needed to wield it.

If I am wielding a 2HW i.e. attacking with it, I cannot use an ordinary Light weapon at the same time even if, as is the case with armour spikes, I am carrying it - I don't have that amount of effort available. Therefore I cannot threaten with it so I can't make an AoO with it.

It's nothing to do with hands or 2WF or a contradiction of the rules of AoO.

My point is I don't think you can attack with a Light Weapon (Armour Spikes) whilst wielding a 2HW (specifically a reach one.

Conditions that deal with wielding weapons usually last until just before the beginning of your next round.

Again whilst I freely concede that armour spikes are not "knuckle spikes" etc. and do not need a physical hand to be empty in order to use them; you do need a "light weapon's" worth of effort available to attack with them. PRD


RedDogMT wrote:
When using armor spikes during a grapple, they can only be used to inflict damage in the turn after the grapple has been established using the damage option.

I don’t think the rules say that.

Core Rulebook wrote:
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.

See for yourself Armor Spikes description on PRG under Core Rulebook.

That doesn’t say you inflict extra damage on a successful grapple check made to inflict damage, but rather any successful grapple check. In other words, if successful grapple check while wearing armor spikes, then add armor spike damage.

Is there some other rule? Something I missed?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
CountofUndolpho wrote:


@Bandw2 We aren't discussing 2WF and THERE IS NO NEED TO SHOUT. Perhaps because they thought it was obvious that you need to be wielding a weapon to be able to attack with it?

no as mentioned this would be the only case in the book in which you must choose what you are wielding beforehand. you only choose what you are wielding at the moment of attack. choosing your wielding is a non-action.

also, I KNOW WE ARE NOT I SPECIFICALLY SAID WE ARE NOT, jesus i'll shout if you keep misunderstanding me, it must be a volume issue(i jest). THE FAQ WAS IN RESPONSE TO HOW ARMOR SPIKES AND TWO-HANDED WEAPONS INTERACT, THEY SAID IT ONLY CHANGES TWF RULES.

armor spikes are like US in that they don't have a specific body part attached to it.

and if you think US's use as any body part of Unarmed strike's description it isn't, it is only mentioned in monk's unarmed strike, and i don't think anyone believes it is only a monk can attack with unarmed strike with your hands full.

Grand Lodge

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
RedDogMT wrote:
When using armor spikes during a grapple, they can only be used to inflict damage in the turn after the grapple has been established using the damage option.

I don’t think the rules say that.

Core Rulebook wrote:
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.

See for yourself Armor Spikes description on PRG under Core Rulebook.

That doesn’t say you inflict extra damage on a successful grapple check made to inflict damage, but rather any successful grapple check. In other words, if successful grapple check while wearing armor spikes, then add armor spike damage.

Is there some other rule? Something I missed?

It says "grapple attack" which is a specific thing you can do on successive rounds after successfully maintaining the grapple.

Scarab Sages

CountofUndolpho wrote:

@

It's nothing to do with hands or 2WF or a contradiction of the rules of AoO.

My point is I don't think you can attack with a Light Weapon (Armour Spikes) whilst wielding a 2HW (specifically a reach one.

Conditions that deal with wielding weapons usually last until just before the beginning of your next round.

Read the Jason Buhlman post that BBT linked. It specifically states that using a hand is not necessarily wielding an off hand. Here, I will quote it myself:

A shield uses up a hand, but it might or might not use up a "primary" or "off" hand, depending on whether or not it is used to attack. You could, for example, use a longsword, wield a shield to get the AC bonus, and make an attack with armor spikes.

All three weapons are wielded in this case, even though you do not attack with the shield on your turn. A shield is still a weapon and you could still make a shield bash as an AoO off turn, even if you had made an off hand attack with the armor spikes using TWF on your turn.

Likewise, you are still wielding a two-handed weapon and armor spikes even if you do not make an off-hand attack with the spike on your turn. You still threaten with them and can make an AoO outside of your turn.


@Imbicatus thank you for actually answering the points I've been making.
I agree with the Jason quote, it's the attack action that uses the effort needed to attack

It all comes down to making attacks, not utilization of your hands, necessarily.

That's where I think the effort argument comes in, whilst the weapon does not need a hand it needs some prep and effort to use. It is a martial light weapon after all. To go from a fully committed reach weapon attack on someone 10' away to a spiky body slam on someone 5' away as an immediate action(AoO) just seems.... not in-keeping with the rules.

Imbicatus wrote:
A shield is still a weapon and you could still make a shield bash as an AoO off turn, even if you had made an off hand attack with the armor spikes using TWF on your turn.
Not according to the description.
PRD wrote:
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 AoO is still an attack and your turn as far as effects go lasts until just before your next turn.

This is another reason why I think they take some effort - if not why can't you use them as alternate off-hand attacks.

You realise BBT will now tell us that it's nothing to do with 2WF and tell me off because I keep bringing it up.

I blame you.


claudekennilol wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
RedDogMT wrote:
When using armor spikes during a grapple, they can only be used to inflict damage in the turn after the grapple has been established using the damage option.

I don’t think the rules say that.

Core Rulebook wrote:
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.

See for yourself Armor Spikes description on PRG under Core Rulebook.

That doesn’t say you inflict extra damage on a successful grapple check made to inflict damage, but rather any successful grapple check. In other words, if successful grapple check while wearing armor spikes, then add armor spike damage.

Is there some other rule? Something I missed?

It says "grapple attack" which is a specific thing you can do on successive rounds after successfully maintaining the grapple.

Actually, every Grapple Check is an attack roll. A Grapple is an attack, even the first roll to initiate the Grapple.

Grand Lodge

CountofUndolpho wrote:

@Imbicatus thank you for actually answering the points I've been making.

I agree with the Jason quote, it's the attack action that uses the effort needed to attack
Jason Buhlman wrote:
It all comes down to making attacks, not utilization of your hands, necessarily.

That's where I think the effort argument comes in, whilst the weapon does not need a hand it needs some prep and effort to use. It is a martial light weapon after all. To go from a fully committed reach weapon attack on someone 10' away to a spiky body slam on someone 5' away as an immediate action(AoO) just seems.... not in-keeping with the rules.

Imbicatus wrote:
A shield is still a weapon and you could still make a shield bash as an AoO off turn, even if you had made an off hand attack with the armor spikes using TWF on your turn.
Not according to the description.
PRD wrote:
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 AoO is still an attack and your turn as far as effects go lasts until just before your next turn.

This is another reason why I think they take some effort - if not why can't you use them as alternate off-hand attacks.

You realise BBT will now tell us that it's nothing to do with 2WF and tell me off because I keep bringing it up.

I blame you.

That description is saying that you can't make a free extra attack. If I have Improved Two Weapon fighting I most definitely can make my first offhand attack with a dagger and make my second offhand attack with armor spikes.


@Bandw2 NOW HEAR THIS THE FAQ DIDN'T CHANGE ANYTHING FOR ME I HAD NEVER PLAYED 2WF USING A 2HW AND ARMOUR SPIKES. I HAVE NEVER PLAYED IT WAS POSSIBLE IN ANY ITERATION OF D&D, IN ANY CAMPAIGN SINCE I GOT THE BLUE AND SILVER BASIC BOOK IN THE POST. I DON'T DISAGREE WITH "ALWAYS ON ARMOUR SPIKES" BECAUSE OF THAT FAQ. IT JUST ADDED TO MY BELIEF IT WAS WRONG.

It's quite cathartic all that shouty capitals business isn't it ;). I hope I have cleared that up any way.

51 to 100 of 137 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Some Questions About Armor Spikes All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.