Some Questions About Armor Spikes


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 137 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Ok, first of all, I have looked through these posts and found a variety of opinions but I am not sure if there have been official rulings. As such, I am looking for answers to these questions and if you answer, please state whether this is an opinion or if it is an official ruling.

So, first of all does Armor Spike damage get added on only to grapple maneuver checks made to 'deal damage' as an extra amount of damage above whatever damage you would normally do with that check, or does it apply the Armor Spike damage also to all other grapple checks?

Second, when grappling do you add your strength bonus to the additional damage that Armor Spikes add, in essence giving you in a grapple check to 'deal damage' your base damage roll plus strength plus your Armor Spike damage plus strength?

Third, when grappling, are Armor Spikes considered an attack as constrict is? If they are applied to all grapple combat maneuvers it would not make sense for them not to be, however if they are only added as additional damage to grapple checks to 'deal damage' it could be ruled either way.

Thank you ahead of time for your responses.

Liberty's Edge

Ian Meadows wrote:
So, first of all does Armor Spike damage get added on only to grapple maneuver checks made to 'deal damage' as an extra amount of damage above whatever damage you would normally do with that check, or does it apply the Armor Spike damage also to all other grapple checks?

No, armor spikes are treated as a weapon when they are used. You do not add together the normal grapple damage and the armor spike damage. You either do your normal grapple damage OR you do armor spike damage.

Damage: You can inflict damage to your target equal to your unarmed strike, a natural attack, or an attack made with armor spikes or a light or one-handed weapon. This damage can be either lethal or nonlethal.

Ian Meadows wrote:
Second, when grappling do you add your strength bonus to the additional damage that Armor Spikes add, in essence giving you in a grapple check to 'deal damage' your base damage roll plus strength plus your Armor Spike damage plus strength?

Since you treat armor spikes as a weapon, you do add your Strength bonus (or penalty) to damage (but only once).

Ian Meadows wrote:
Third, when grappling, are Armor Spikes considered an attack as constrict is? If they are applied to all grapple combat maneuvers it would not make sense for them not to be, however if they are only added as additional damage to grapple checks to 'deal damage' it could be ruled either way.

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.


Thank you, I thought they could only be used on the 'deal damage' checks, however the item description is rather confusing still on the damage they deal as it mentions they "allow you to deal extra piercing damage on a successful grapple attack". If you have to use the armor spikes instead of another form of damage, how can it be extra?

Silver Crusade

The advantage of armor spikes is that you always threaten adjacent with them. Since reach weapon wielders do not threaten adjacent, wearing armor spikes is one of the few ways they can. Think of armor spikes as 'always wielding a dagger', that's mechanically how they work.


Also they should auto cause damage if your grappled yourself or even eatin alive.

As for deal extra piercing damage.
I thought itwas actually extra.. Normal grapple damage + the 1d4/6(can't remember) + normal modifiers. It does say extra so I've always viewed it that way when it comes to grapppling..

It does allow you to threaten, though I could have sworn there have been zillions of threads about using it with a reach weapon and various Devs/paizo peeps who commented for and agianst it. So I'm not sure how it was resolved in the end.


It would be worth checking with your DM about whether they threaten when using a two-handed weapon. I rule that if you can't use them for TWF alongside a 2H weapon then you can't threaten with them. Apparently others follow Magda's 'always wielding a dagger' policy. Though I have never played in a game where it is allowed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CountofUndolpho wrote:
It would be worth checking with your DM about whether they threaten when using a two-handed weapon. I rule that if you can't use them for TWF alongside a 2H weapon then you can't threaten with them. Apparently others follow Magda's 'always wielding a dagger' policy. Though I have never played in a game where it is allowed.

That is complete house rule territory. Picking up a greatsword does not in any way prevent you from using your armor spikes. What you cannot do is make an off hand attack while attacking with a greatsword. And off hand attacks ONLY apply when getting extra attacks.

A character with a high BAB could attack with the greatsword and discover that it is encountering DR and so switch to his armor spikes for his second (or later) iterative attack(s). This attack with the armor spikes does not take the -2 TWF penalty, does 1X STR damage, and gets normal -1/+2 Power Attack damage. Thus a character can attack with his armor spikes, and most certainly threatens with them. FAQ


It's not possible to threaten with both a reach weapon and armor spikes right? To technically use the armor spikes you will need a free hand. So after your attacks for the round you have to decide if you want to threaten with the armor spikes or threaten with the reach weapon for the rest of the round. (IE whether or not you release one hand from the weapon)

Scarab Sages

No, you threaten with both the armor spikes and your reach weapon. You use no hand for attacks with the armor spikes. The restriction on "hands" is solely for using TWF. If you are not using TWF, there is no "off-hand". You threaten with both weapons, and can choose to make an AoO with either weapon.

Grand Lodge

akrippler wrote:
It's not possible to threaten with both a reach weapon and armor spikes right? To technically use the armor spikes you will need a free hand. So after your attacks for the round you have to decide if you want to threaten with the armor spikes or threaten with the reach weapon for the rest of the round. (IE whether or not you release one hand from the weapon)

No, they're armor spikes, not fist spikes. I've got spikes all over my armor. And just like you can make an unarmed strike with any limb (not just your fists), you can do the same with armor spikes.


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

Grand Lodge

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

Sorry, the fact that you can make armor spike attacks with things other than your fist and that you can threaten nearby with armor spikes while simultaneously threatening with a reach weapon is the standard. Anything else is house rules territory.

Would you say the same thing about Unarmed Strikes? If I had a reach weapon would I not be able to Unarmed Strike someone adjacent while leaving both hands on my weapon?


@claudekennilol There are numerous threads where such things are argued exhaustively I'm sure you can find all you need in one of those.

Grand Lodge

CountofUndolpho wrote:
@claudekennilol There are numerous threads where such things are argued exhaustively I'm sure you can find all you need in one of those.

So is that a can or can't to attacking with an unarmed strike in that scenario?


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? You can be me and I'll be Blackbloodtroll.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CountofUndolpho wrote:
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? You can be me and I'll be Blackbloodtroll.

The Two Weapon fighting "off hand" ONLY applies when you are making an extra attack in a full attack action using a second weapon other than your primary weapon.

Outside of the full attack action, you can wield two weapons at once, threaten with both of them, and even attack with both of them using iterative attacks without penalty. The only time the off-hand language applies is if you are using the TWF feats to gain an extra attack in your turn.

Grand Lodge

CountofUndolpho wrote:
You can be me and I'll be Blackbloodtroll.

I have no idea what you mean by this, but Imbicatus made my point for me. So I'll just reiterate that Imbicatus is right here. (also yes, you can make an unarmed strike while wielding a two-handed weapon. I still don't know your stance on that as you refused to acknowledge the question. But either way this, at least, is clear from the text in the CRB)


@Imbicatus there is more to the link than the title

Grand Lodge

CountofUndolpho wrote:
@Imbicatus there is more to the link than the title

...that's incredibly misleading. You quoted the FAQ in your link but linked to something entirely different. I didn't click on it because I know what the FAQ entry says and what it pertains to (not this, btw) as I'm sure Imbicatus also knows and also didn't click on it.


I quoted a thread title in the link, in fact the title of the thread I was linking to. I apologise if this mislead you into not reading it before commenting it was not my intention.


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

Polite translation "I don't care what the rules say I am going to do whatever I want" And that's okay, but it is called a house rule.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.

Grand Lodge

The FAQ regarding Armor Spikes is about two weapon fighting only.

It has nothing to do with threatening with multiple weapons.

You absolutely ca threaten with multiple weapons.

A person can wear two Boot Blades, wield a Longspear, a Dwarven Boulder Helmet, and have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, and with every single one of those weapons. Replace Longspear with two daggers, and the result remains the same.

"Off-hand" comes into play, only during the full attack action, to two weapon fight.

You never need a free hand to threaten with Armor Spikes, or Unarmed Strikes, or any other "non-hand" weapon.

There is absolutely no support RAW, to say otherwise.

If you run it different, you are making a houserule.

Full stop.

If this were a Monk wielding two Kamas, and he wanted to make an unarmed strike, as an AoO, would this be an issue?

Liberty's Edge

CountofUndolpho wrote:
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? You can be me and I'll be Blackbloodtroll.

Please don't. One is waaaaaaaaaay more than enough.

.
.
.
Also, this has gone a bit off topic from the OP.


RedDogMT wrote:
CountofUndolpho wrote:
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? You can be me and I'll be Blackbloodtroll.

Please don't. One is waaaaaaaaaay more than enough.

.
.
.
Also, this has gone a bit off topic from the OP.

Not really. It's still a question about armor spikes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The thread I linked to above covers all the arguments put forward so far.
Please find the post that roughly equates to both your point and level of politeness, then find the response which you prefer depending on your willingness to debate/need for conflict. Thus obviating the need to continue the same debate in this thread.

Ay up @BlackBloodTroll we did that discussion already, remember?


CountofUndolpho wrote:

The thread I linked to above covers all the arguments put forward so far.

Please find the post that roughly equates to both your point and level of politeness, then find the response which you prefer depending on your willingness to debate/need for conflict. Thus obviating the need to continue the same debate in this thread.

Ay up @BlackBloodTroll we did that discussion already, remember?

And you were debunked there as well. And you have obviously completely disregarded the FAQ on using multiple weapons in a round without TWF.


thorin001 wrote:
CountofUndolpho wrote:

The thread I linked to above covers all the arguments put forward so far.

Please find the post that roughly equates to both your point and level of politeness, then find the response which you prefer depending on your willingness to debate/need for conflict. Thus obviating the need to continue the same debate in this thread.

Ay up @BlackBloodTroll we did that discussion already, remember?

And you were debunked there as well. And you have obviously completely disregarded the FAQ on using multiple weapons in a round without TWF.

A la fin de l'envoi, je touche.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CountofUndolpho wrote:

The thread I linked to above covers all the arguments put forward so far.

Please find the post that roughly equates to both your point and level of politeness, then find the response which you prefer depending on your willingness to debate/need for conflict. Thus obviating the need to continue the same debate in this thread.

Ay up @BlackBloodTroll we did that discussion already, remember?

Yeah, I didn't see any arguments you had that changed the fundamentals of the debate. The FAQ ONLY talks about off hand use and the 'mystical' imaginary hand and says nothing about normal use as off hands only happen in two weapon combat.

SO I'll have to agree with thorin001. You've been pretty well debunked. Unless something new is added, pointing to an old thread isn't changing anyone's minds, at least not in your favor...


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.

Grand Lodge

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.

Yet that was over 3 years ago and hasn't been errata'd so obviously they don't feel that's the case.


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.

They feel so strongly that they have not released a FAQ or Errata on the subject. The closest they came was to disallow TWF with armor spikes and a 2-handed weapon. Which, as noted in the FAQ only applies to gaining an extra attack, not attacking with multiple weapons.


Obviously.

Grand Lodge

That never went through.

We would not want to tell the Monk he can't kick, because he is holding two Kamas.


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.

At best, you have RAI evidence in a RAW debate. Kudos for a post unproductive to a rules debate. I'll go to my posts, taking this one into account.

graystone wrote:
Yeah, I didn't see any arguments you had that changed the fundamentals of the debate.

And to further BBT's point, would you stop an awakened dog from using armor spikes on it's barding because it doesn't have any hands?


graystone wrote:


And to further BBT's point, would you stop an awakened dog from using armor spikes on it's barding because it doesn't have any hands?

For some reason I read that as an awkward dog and had no idea why that mattered.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
graystone wrote:


And to further BBT's point, would you stop an awakened dog from using armor spikes on it's barding because it doesn't have any hands?
For some reason I read that as an awkward dog and had no idea why that mattered.

Nothing stops an animal from gaining it's full BAB attacks with armor spikes. An awakened dog with a dozen levels of barbarian is a lot more dangerous than single bite dog.

If you mean just the visuals, then it's just as awkward as a human using them...


blackbloodtroll wrote:

That never went through.

We would not want to tell the Monk he can't kick, because he is holding two Kamas.

Deliberate conflation of holding with wielding?

Grand Lodge

CountofUndolpho wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

That never went through.

We would not want to tell the Monk he can't kick, because he is holding two Kamas.

Deliberate conflation of holding with wielding?

Replace two Kamas, with one Longspear. You get the idea.

Either way, he is wielding them all. Ask SKR.


graystone wrote:


And to further BBT's point, would you stop an awakened dog from using armor spikes on it's barding because it doesn't have any hands?

Er....no....er....why would I?

greystone wrote:
Nothing stops an animal from gaining it's full BAB attacks with armor spikes.

Have we started a different discussion here? Only having a standard action would stop anyone having their full BAB attacks with any weapon including an animal. Charging is another case.

I think I have misunderstood the point you are trying to make.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
CountofUndolpho wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

That never went through.

We would not want to tell the Monk he can't kick, because he is holding two Kamas.

Deliberate conflation of holding with wielding?

Replace two Kamas, with one Longspear. You get the idea.

Either way, he is wielding them all. Ask SKR.

Again we have had this discussion before:

CountofUndolpho wrote:

The point I was trying to make posts ago is just because it is there does not mean you wield it. If you had a Sea-Knife on each leg, spiked gauntlets on each hand and a Dwarven Boulder Helmet on your head then you could choose between all 5 for an AoO (whilst lying on the floor shouting come back here and I'll bite your legs off!) But you can't fight with all in a normal round, unless you have that number of attacks (BAB,TWF,Feats).

But the point being argued for 10' & 5' AoO is if you have done a full attack/ended a round wielding a 2H weapon then that is the one available for AoOs. Sea-Knife and Barbezu Beard are exceptions as they can be used as an off-hand attack whilst wielding a 2H weapon as per their description. Both are Light Melee weapons and so still can't be used for TWF alongside a 2H weapon.

Note the monk unarmed attack description specifies with your hands full rather than whilst wielding.


So you're saying if you had a long sword and a short sword and then made a full attack with the long sword that you couldn't make an AoO with the short sword?


I am only talking about when using a two handed weapon and armour spikes.

CountofUndolpho wrote:
It would be worth checking with your DM about whether they threaten when using a two-handed weapon. I rule that if you can't use them for TWF alongside a 2H weapon then you can't threaten with them whilst wielding a 2HW. Apparently others follow Magda's 'always wielding a dagger' policy. Though I have never played in a game where it is allowed.

The bit in italics is a bit I should have put in the original comment.

@Durngrun I am unsure how you could think I said from any of my posts, if I have put my point across so poorly as to mislead you, I appologise.

If you point out the offending passage I will try to amend it to your satisfaction and our mutual understanding.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
So you're saying if you had a long sword and a short sword and then made a full attack with the long sword that you couldn't make an AoO with the short sword?

Somehow to CountofUndolpho, it's different if you have a two handed weapon in your hands as opposed to two weapons when you aren't two weapon fighting. Somehow a two handed weapon stops ALL other weapon use, while single handed weapons can be used at will.

I don't understand it either.


CountofUndolpho wrote:

I am only talking about when using a two handed weapon and armour spikes.

CountofUndolpho wrote:
It would be worth checking with your DM about whether they threaten when using a two-handed weapon. I rule that if you can't use them for TWF alongside a 2H weapon then you can't threaten with them whilst wielding a 2HW. Apparently others follow Magda's 'always wielding a dagger' policy. Though I have never played in a game where it is allowed.

The bit in italics is a bit I should have put in the original comment.

@Durngrun I am unsure how you could think I said from any of my posts, if I have put my point across so poorly as to mislead you, I appologise.

If you point out the offending passage I will try to amend it to your satisfaction and our mutual understanding.

So do you think you have to have a free hand to attack with armor spikes?

Grand Lodge

We are not even discussing two-weapon fighting.

So, any FAQ regarding two-weapon fighting is irrelevant to the discussion.

A PC with Improved Unarmed Strike might not be able to two-weapon fight with a Longspear, and an unarmed strike, but he can certainly wield, and threaten, with both.

Silver Crusade

The past ~20 posts have mostly been the result of bad communication. Without ralizing it, people have been talking past each other. Two weapon fighting has been conflated with other combat modes, leading to confusion. This has lead to people arguing apples versus oranges, without stopping to compare type of fruit. Best to drop the topic and move on.

Are there any actual rules questions remaining about Armor Spikes?

Grand Lodge

Indeed.

Some people still feel the need to bring up two weapon fighting.

NOT RELEVANT!


graystone wrote:

Somehow to CountofUndolpho, it's different if you have a two handed weapon in your hands as opposed to two weapons when you aren't two weapon fighting. Somehow a two handed weapon stops ALL other weapon use, while single handed weapons can be used at will.

I don't understand it either.

This is not my position, neither do I understand how it pertains to the discussion of wielding a 2HW and threatening with armour spikes.

@BBT & @Magna Luckbender I think people find it hard to read through before commenting, they address what catches their attention rather than the whole thing.

@Durngrun You have to have a light weapon's "amount of effort" available to use armour spikes as an attack. It is an odd mechanic but it's how it's written. "Hands" are part of the oddness of the mechanic.

PRD wrote:
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 AoO is an attack at your normal BAB so you need to have the capacity to use a Light Weapon to use Armour Spikes for one.


CountofUndolpho wrote:


@Durngrun You have to have a light weapon's "amount of effort" available to use armour spikes as an attack. It is an odd mechanic but it's how it's written. "Hands" are part of the oddness of the mechanic.
PRD wrote:
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 AoO is an attack at your normal BAB so you need to have the capacity to use a Light Weapon to use Armour Spikes for one.

But nowhere in the rules does it say the amount of effort used in your full attack affects your AoO.

Look at it this way: if a character made a full attack, two weapon fighting. Would you say he had "used up" his effort and then could not make an AoO? If not, why would a two-handed fighter be denied an AoO?

1 to 50 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.