Hi all,
Reading the rules about two-weapon fighting and armor spikes, I kind of get the impression that it would be possible to use the two-weapon fighting technique by combining a two-handed weapon (e.g. Greatsword) with Armor Spikes.
Is that correct??
The rules say that "if your off-hand attack is made with a light weapon, the penalties are reduced by 2" and the armor spikes entry say that you can use them to make an off-hand attack and they count as light weapon for that purpose.
The way I picture it, is that using your armor spikes leaves your hands free to wield a Greatsword or Greataxe...
Am I correct?
Bocklin
As far as I know, yes.
Also keep in mind you could wield a reach weapon (longspear, other polearms) and still threaten the squares adjacent to you.
I would have to say "No". However, I don't have much that I can back this up with [PH 113, column 2, paragraph 2].
Considering that the primary weapon is a two handed weapon, you are effectively using both hands to make the attack. Therefore, you can't use an off hand attack and still make the primary attack.
This is just my interpretation of it. If you have a high enough BAB, then you could strike with the Greatsword, then attack with the Armor Spikes (and so on).
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I would also have to say "no" to this. You cannot make an 'off-hand' attack while wielding a two-handed weapon. The only part of the armor spikes that can be employed as an 'attack' would be the spikes at the end of the gauntlets, necessitating an actual swing at the enemy. You can't just throw your entire body at them as an 'off-hand attack'. If nothing else, such a maneuver should provoke an AoO for entering the enemy's square.
Even if it makes sense 'realistically' I would say no as a DM. I don't know if it's technically legal, but I do know that it's obviously against the spirit of the rules.
It seems quite overpowered indeed, but I can't find a rule anywhere that forbids it.
The only excerpts I find seem to be phrased in a way that lead to a debate (e.g. "do you need to have a hand free in order to be able to make an off-hand attack with armor spikes?").
Still searching... (more inputs welcome)
Bocklin
Contributor
|
I would allow it, with the following restriction: I would treat the two handed weapon as one handed for the purposes of damage bonus. Just like if the person was using a double weapon. I have no rules to support this, but it seems like an acceptable balance to me, and I can logically justify to myself that you would be using the spikes on your offhand arm and therefore reducing your two handed swing (basically using the combo like a double weapon). The two-handed weapon does more base damage than any of the double weapons, but you cna't double the value of your weapon focus/specialization with this combo. I think that would make it fair.
Per the letter of the RAW, this seems to be legal. However, I'm going to say 'no', based on this quote from p.124 of the PHB: "You can't also make an attack with armour spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa."
Right, but a longspear isn't an off-hand weapon. It's a primary weapon.
I'm aware of that. However, I'm going to argue that the two-handed weapon essentially counts as both the one-handed weapon and the off-hand weapon for a character who uses it as such. After all, the Str bonus to damage looks oddly similar to that gained using two weapons that way...
From a balanace point of view, allowing armour spikes along with a two-handed weapon is an absolute disaster. Of the fighting stlyes (one-handed, two-handed, 'sword and board', two-weapon), the two-handed style is already by far the most powerful (two-handed Power Attack, the use of few feats, and the Animated Shield ensure that), even without the armour spikes. Add them as well, and it's pretty clearly broken.
(As for the FAQ, I don't trust it. I've found that it is a poor guide to the rules, as several answers are simply wrong. Fortunately, it's not official errata, so it doesn't overrule the PHB.)
|
I would say absolutely no. The reasons being very easy.
From page 113, the light, one-handed and two-handed designations are "a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat." So, not neccessarily how many hands are required to make the attacks.
Therefore, a two-handed weapon uses both hands for the combat. The armor spikes require an off-hand attack, which is a Light designation. So to do this you require three hands to make the attacks. While this is not a measure of how many "hands" is required, the hands in question are a measure of effort. And unless your character is described as having three hands (therefore extra ability for this effort) it is just too difficult to pull off.
You can throw your body into the opponent but that is a grapple check (as per the armor spike description). So if you have more than one attack you could use one for the two-handed attack and one for a grapple, but you don't get an extra off-hand attack.
Spiked shin guards?
Spiked shin guards?
Not a bad point, but I would consider it as an unarmed attack (as per spiked gauntlet). The armor says that it is a light weapon, but the same is said for the spiked gauntlet and it is considered an unarmed attack.
So, I would still stick "No" as the answer as an unarmed attack is another action. If you have a high enough BAB, then you can use it.
Spiked shin guards?Not a bad point, but I would consider it as an unarmed attack (as per spiked gauntlet). The armor says that it is a light weapon, but the same is said for the spiked gauntlet and it is considered an unarmed attack.
So, I would still stick "No" as the answer as an unarmed attack is another action. If you have a high enough BAB, then you can use it.
I'd also like to suppliment this by the feat "Two Weapon Fighting": "You can fight with a weapon in each hand." As your second hand is bound, you're using both hands.
However, dropping a weapon is a free action ; )
Of course it's allowed. (...) This is covered in the D&D Rules FAQ.
Thanks for drawing my attention on this. It is indeed clearly covered in the FAQ (page 46 of the latest version, date of today) and is considered there as a valid action.
If you use the full attack action, you can use armor spikes as either a primary light weapon or as an off-hand light weapon, even if you’re using a shield or using a two-handed weapon. In these latter two cases, you’re assumed to be kicking or kneeing your foe with your armor spikes
Good enough for me! Thanks. :-)
Bocklin
|
|
You know, I understand the whole kicking and kneeing part of the combat idea, but it just doesn't "Feel" right based upon the rules.
Now, I would probably House Rule to ban it, regardless of what the FAQ says, it flies in the face of the PHB rules, essentially making them irrelevent.
Now, what my guts says is "sure go ahead, sounds like fun." But rules are rules. I am not one for banning rules lightly, regardless of a FAQ. And the FAQ does indeed ban the PHB rules.
My negative feeling is because if you allow the 2-handed attack, followed by a kick with spikes (sounds like grappling to me), then lets also allow a nice head butt, and an elbow strike as well (after that attack the elbow would be in position for an attack), followed by a punch. So now we have a 2-handed strike followed by four off-hand attacks! Cool! I know you only get one off-hand attack, but in fact we are only using one! the rest are an elbow, head and knee... see still only one hand being used. See the FAQ says these aren't really hands, so I can make an unlimited number of attacks as long as I only use one hand!
In fact I can see the player then saying "Hey, I ate some bad chilis before combat. I turn around and fart on him too and ignite it from that fireball Roy threw! How many dice damage is that worth, at least 10d6 right?" And it fits totally within the opening the FAQ has created.
It smacks of munchkinism at its worst, and at best is a total abuse, if not disregard, of the core rules.
Sorry but I just have to say the FAQ is 100% wrong on this one. Whomever wrote that FAQ did not read the rules first. They should be summarily executed and then resurrected :)
I have to respectfully disagree with you Krome.
You decision is fine for your game, and if I were playing in your game I wouldn't argue too hard with you on it (the result of the ruling is reasonable).
But your rational isn't very solid.
Your argument that a head butt, or elbow strike, or knee / kick doesn't count as using a "hand" is covered under the description of the Monk. The PHB pretty much states, indirectly, that any form of attack can be used and that the designation of "hand" isn't really literal.
And for those who say using Armor Spikes in combat require you to use the gauntlets... What is the purpose of spiking your armor, if it doesn't do anything? In other words, a character can buy Spiked Gauntlets to replace spiking their armor.
Spiking a suit of armor allows you to use your whole body as a weapon. Shoulders, head, knees, shins, elbows... Even chest or back.
Again, let me make it clear: I am not saying that everyone should allow the two handed weapon + spiked armor two weapon fighting trick. But at least stop trying to rationalize the decision. Just state that it feels wrong to you, and move on. (Don't fall into the trap of saying it is overpowered, unless you do all possible math first.)
Again, let me make it clear: I am not saying that everyone should allow the two handed weapon + spiked armor two weapon fighting trick. But at least stop trying to rationalize the decision. Just state that it feels wrong to you, and move on. (Don't fall into the trap of saying it is overpowered, unless you do all possible math first.)
That this option is more powerful than all other available options in the Core Rules should be obvious. As things stand, the greatsword-weilding Fighter is considerably more powerful than any other core option, thanks to the two-handed Power Attack, the Animated Shield (which removes the only trade-off that made sword-and-board worthwhile), and the relative lack of necessary feats (which cripples two-weapon style, which almost requires the character double up on the Weapon Focus, Specialisation, Improved Critical and similar feats for his two weapons and requires he take the two-weapon feats as well).
The question then becomes, who gains from adding the armour spikes? Well, the single-weapon Fighter does, but then he just becomes a two-weapon fighter with a sub-optimal choice of second weapon. What's more, his chosen style is so weak itself (it's a sword-and-board style with none of the advantages) that this isn't worth considering.
The two-weapon Fighter doesn't benefit, since the rules specifically forbit this option.
The sword-and-board Fighter can use this option, but he'd be better served taking the Improved Shield Bash feat and using that instead. In any event, he's not gaining anything more than the two-handed Fighter, which still leaves him behind.
Now, the two-handed Fighter. Our greatsword-weilder. Does he benefit?
Well, here's the thing: if the character is using Power Attack to any extent, it's because he's pretty much sure of hitting. If he's not, he won't use this option anyway, so it can be ignored.
If he is hitting very often, then what he can do is reduce his Power Attack by 2, take the extra attack and have a good chance of hitting, for extra damage of 1d6 plus half his Str bonus. That is almost guaranteed to be more than the 4 points he's sacrificing by dropping his Power Attack by 2.
So, yes, this option is more powerful than not using it. And if it fails the "will everyone do this" test, that's a pretty strong indicator that it's overpowered (like the two-handed style itself, in fact).
In the RAW, it's allowed. It even passes the "reality" rule as it simulates a person body-checking, elbow-striking, kicking, kneeing, or shoulder-blocking someone in addition to attacking with a two-handed weapon. It's even a fairly good option in some circumstances. However, it's piercing damage, which means that it's not very useful against skeletons and zombies. Also, the need to enchant the armor spikes to pierce DR/magic and the standard material crapshoot bring the expense for this option in line with a Two-Weapon Fighter.
As far as combining reach and non-reach weapons, the options are more limited. Technically, you can attack with both a reach and a non-reach weapon only if you simultaneously threaten a reach and non-reach opponent or if you use your 5-foot step to move in-between the attacks of a full attack action.
Greatsword/Armor Spikes with Power Attack and Two-Weapon Fighting, Longsword/Shield with Improved Shield Bash and Two-Weapon Fighting, and Longsword/Short Sword (or Scimitar/Kukri) with Two-Weapon Fighting and Improved Two-Weapon Fighting all have benefits and drawbacks. The Greatsword/Armor Spikes wielder can do more damage with their main attack, the Longsword/Shield wielder has better AC (until animated shields come into play, which benefit both Two-Handed and Two-Weapon types equally), and the Longsword/Shortsword wielder has more attacks. Which type of fighter do you want to be?
That this option is more powerful than all other available options in the Core Rules should be obvious. As things stand, the greatsword-weilding Fighter is considerably more powerful than any other core option, thanks to the two-handed Power Attack, the Animated Shield (which removes the only trade-off that made sword-and-board worthwhile), and the relative lack of necessary feats (which cripples two-weapon style, which almost requires the character double up on the Weapon Focus, Specialisation, Improved Critical and similar feats for his two weapons and requires he take the two-weapon feats as well).The question then becomes, who gains from adding the armour spikes? Well, the single-weapon Fighter does, but then he just becomes a two-weapon fighter with a sub-optimal choice of second weapon. What's more, his chosen style is so weak itself (it's a sword-and-board style with none of the advantages) that this isn't worth considering.
I see were your coming from but I think your more concerned then is warranted. Basically speaking the fighter that adds this to his repertoire gains almost nothing from it unless he starts to really feed resources into the build and then its essentially self balancing. Its still an off hand attack - it makes his main attack worse by adding penalties to it. The only way to compensate for that is by picking up feats to help out. If he does that then he had to start doing things to these spikes to make them viable against the more powerful enemies he starts to face later on - thats money not being spent on his main weapon. Essentially I find it hard to see how this build improves the basic two handed weapon fighter. From were I am standing it takes resources away from what that character does well (bash things with big sword) and feeds those resources into a weapon that is never really going to stack up to the big sword.
In other words I think the answer to your question of 'Who benifits' is none of the above.
I don't see any problem with this in the rules. For my campaign, though, this falls into the same "no silly stuff" house rule that catches the spiked chain, the dwarven urgrosh, and a few other weapons (including all oversized weapons).
Sorry to threadjack, but Doug, could you elaborate on the house-ruling you've made on the spiked chain? I'm not so much concerned in the urgrosh or other weapons, but would be willing to read those rulings as well. Thanks!
And back to the subject, crazy stunts like this wouldn't be pulled if reach weapons threatened adjacent areas, like they should (with a negative to hit or something). In my opinion of course. As it stands now, the spiked chain is the only reach weapon that sees any action in our campaigns. The others could be removed from the game entirely and would not be missed.
You know, thematically the main thing that pops to mind would be a dwarven battlerager with spiked armor and a greataxe. Its not the most efficent character, but its in the "spirit" of what the character would do.
|
|
I have to respectfully disagree with you Krome.
You decision is fine for your game, and if I were playing in your game I wouldn't argue too hard with you on it (the result of the ruling is reasonable).
But your rational isn't very solid.
Your argument that a head butt, or elbow strike, or knee / kick doesn't count as using a "hand" is covered under the description of the Monk. The PHB pretty much states, indirectly, that any form of attack can be used and that the designation of "hand" isn't really literal.
I know it is not literal..see my previous post about "hands." "Hands" is a measure of difficulty.
However the FAQ seems to take it as literal, braking with all of the rules of the PHB. The armor spikes are not useless. You can use them as a gauntlet attack or in a grapple.
The notion that kicking is allowed seems awfully silly to me. Kicking is in essence a grapple (From the PHB "Grappling means wrestling and struggling hand to hand"). The FAQ is thereby saying that you get a free grapple without using the grapple rules. If it were not in the FAQ and I were to ask if I could get a free grapple after attacking with a 2-handed weapon, without using the grappling rules, rather just making an extra attack, no one on here would have said yes. Now the question is, if you don't have armor spikes, can you still make that extra attack? If not, why not?
I understand your opinion and I probably did not make mine very clear. :) Sorry. Too much use of sarcasm which doesn't carry very well over the net :)
|
|
In the RAW, it's allowed. It even passes the "reality" rule as it simulates a person body-checking, elbow-striking, kicking, kneeing, or shoulder-blocking someone in addition to attacking with a two-handed weapon.
Yes, agreed it passes the reality test. In a sword fight there was a lot of punchiin and kicking and elbo striking. But this isn't reality. :) It is D&D. And body-checking, elbow-striking, kicking, kneeing, or shoulder-blocking someone is called grappling.
Again, let me be very specific about this. What you guys are saying is that in addition to your normal attacks, whether 2-handded, one-handed or whatever, you advocate getting an extra gapple check in without using the grapple rules. Because in every single instance to justify this attack the descriptions used are grapples.
If you want to simulate the madness of a real combat use your first attack to swing your sword, your second attack to grapple and apply some nonlethal damage, and your next attack to Bull Rush (can be an attack or part of a charge, attack in this case). NOW you have your reality while following the rules.
BTW what does RAW stand for?
I'm not going to get into mud slinging in this post and just present my opinion.
Although the rules don't specifically say no to using armor spikes in combination with a two-handed weapon it is interesting to note that you can't use armor spikes if you have already made an off-hand attack. attacking with a greatsword is not like attacking with two hand axes (or scimitars ;-), but it's still interesting that they make this distinction.
Now this is not an overpowered attack option, but I do agree with the person who said (rather sensibly) that perhaps the fighter would not be able to use 1-1/2 times his strength bonus with the two-handed weapon. It's actually fairly easy to rationale this change by assuming that the fighter can't make as devestating sweeps with his two-handed weapon because he has to get close enough to the foe to use his armor spikes effectively (though I wouldn't change the reach).
This post actually makes me think of using a fighter who fights with his armor spikes alone, hurling himself bodily at his enemies!
You can do that? *counts missed opportunities in his head*.....if you use your 5-foot step to move in-between the attacks of a full attack action.
Yes, although this only works with your regular attacks. Extra attacks from Cleave and Great Cleave can only be taken before you move (unless you have the Supreme Cleave class ability from some prestige classes).
In the RAW, it's allowed. It even passes the "reality" rule as it simulates a person body-checking, elbow-striking, kicking, kneeing, or shoulder-blocking someone in addition to attacking with a two-handed weapon.Yes, agreed it passes the reality test. In a sword fight there was a lot of punchiin and kicking and elbo striking. But this isn't reality. :) It is D&D. And body-checking, elbow-striking, kicking, kneeing, or shoulder-blocking someone is called grappling.
Unarmed strikes, actually. Grappling is a subset of unarmed combat consisting of grabs and holds.
The description of spiked armor states that it "can deal damage in a grapple or as a separate attack" and the armor spikes entry states "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?ft also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.)." Also, armor spikes are considered martial weapons, which means that (similar to spiked gauntlets) they don't count as "unarmed" for drawing attacks of opportunity.
In a sword fight there was a lot of punchiin and kicking and elbo striking. But this isn't reality. :) It is D&D. And body-checking, elbow-striking, kicking, kneeing, or shoulder-blocking someone is called grappling.
I disagree. True wrestling, not that farce that they show on TV nowadays, does not allow elbow strikes, kneeing and headbutts. That is Martial Arts, not wrestling, therefore those are unarmed attacks, not grapples.
I personally think that there is nothing wrong with allowing an odd-hand strike with armor spikes. The chance to hit is reduced and the damage is much less then their primary attack, so it is not unbalancing things greatly to let the fighter occasionally head-butt his opponent after running him through on his big-azz sword. He's only going to use it in those cases where the extra attack points are not going to be missed. And in such cases, he would have been much better served (as was pointed out already above) by taking Great Cleave.
This attack style sounds much more like something that would be used for style then as a game-breaking extra attack.
You know, thematically the main thing that pops to mind would be a dwarven battlerager with spiked armor and a greataxe. Its not the most efficent character, but its in the "spirit" of what the character would do.
I think this sounds like a pretty cool build but your essentially going the way of the two weapon fighter. Not the optimal path but not so far from optimal that your actually screwed or anything. If you use a lot of splat books there are some cool feats involving spiked armour - still not quite as good as feeding every feat into the big ass axe but, c'est la vie, we all need a little variety with our barbarian builds.
Just for the record...
The reason I asked is because I am considering to make my Olman ranger fight that way.
Thanks to the "free" ranger TWF Feats I don't have to invest much in Dex (making a two-handed weapon all the more attractive); and I could not really picture my savage jungle fighter dancing swiftly and gracefully with two weapons. Since we already have a Warlock in the group, I did not want to make a ranged weapon build.
So... I like the idea of a savage jungle fighter with a raging fighting style using armor spikes made out of exotic wood and bones.
I'll run it by my DM next week and see what he says.
Bocklin
Just for the record...
The reason I asked is because I am considering to make my Olman ranger fight that way.
Thanks to the "free" ranger TWF Feats I don't have to invest much in Dex (making a two-handed weapon all the more attractive); and I could not really picture my savage jungle fighter dancing swiftly and gracefully with two weapons. Since we already have a Warlock in the group, I did not want to make a ranged weapon build.
So... I like the idea of a savage jungle fighter with a raging fighting style using armor spikes made out of exotic wood and bones.
I'll run it by my DM next week and see what he says.
Bocklin
Or armor razors instead of spikes, with the razors being made out of obsidian chips? Just seemed kind of cool and fitting with the Olman idea.
Getting better! Thanks.
Isn't there somewhere rules for "armor razors"? The FR Underdark book??
I assume that having slashing damages would mean a lower damage dice?
Bocklin
I'll try to remind calm, but these are the threads that really get my blood boiling.
It seems that most of the poeple that have posted before me subscribe to the same (unwritten) rule that wizards seems to subscribe to. Namely, "You're a fighter, you don't get nice things."
Why is it that everytime a melee tactic gets suggested, people howl it down in terms of "balance" or "realism" by comapring it to... The Fighter ?!?!
Seriously the Fighter is the weakest of all the core classes, I say anyhting that gives them a shot in the arm at increasing their effectiveness, or even giving them options is a VERY good thing.
To the OP, this is a great tactic that is not at all overpowered. Does it give the Fighter a bit more power? Yep. Is that a good thing? Double Yep.
Basically, even with this option, you still aren't going to be any where near the power level of any of the casters, so I say, let the fighter have whatever toys He wants. The real threat is the Mage capable of bending reality with his mind. Or the Cleric wearing Full pLate and still able to cast 9th Level spells. Or the Druid capable of shapeshifting into a bear and eating you.
Well, I tried not to post - you know that rule about if you don't have anything nice to say don't say anything - with that in mind I will avoid the rabid tirade against the abomination that is spiked armor - and simply ask this:
If the idea is for a jungle fighter - won't the spike get hung up on the underbrush, vines, etc. and make it really easy for swarm type attackers (flies, mosquitos, etc.) to gain purchase and protection - its going to be hard to swat away the darn things if there are spikes in the way (or even nearby).
I don't say this to be critical - but rather to add some more items for consideration since the goal seems to be add flavor rather than optimization.
(...)
If the idea is for a jungle fighter - won't the spike get hung up on the underbrush, vines, etc. (...) I don't say this to be critical - but rather to add some more items for consideration since the goal seems to be add flavor rather than optimization.
Maybe true, but have you ever wondered why Dwarves fight with oversized axes in small tunnels or elves use bows in forests (where vision and therefore range) is limited? ;-)
I think D&D is full of such flavory aberrations...
And actually armor razors might help cut through bushes and vines and avoid to get stuck.
Bocklin
PS: Found "Armor Razors" in the FR Underdark book. 1d6 (x2) slashing, are otherwise like armor spikes.
(...)
If the idea is for a jungle fighter - won't the spike get hung up on the underbrush, vines, etc. (...) I don't say this to be critical - but rather to add some more items for consideration since the goal seems to be add flavor rather than optimization.
Maybe true, but have you ever wondered why Dwarves fight with oversized axes in small tunnels or elves use bows in forests (where vision and therefore range) is limited? ;-)
I think D&D is full of such flavory aberrations...
And actually armor razors might help cut through bushes and vines and avoid to get stuck.
Bocklin
PS: Found "Armor Razors" in the FR Underdark book. 1d6 (x2) slashing, are otherwise like armor spikes.
Sorry, didn't get a chance to look it up before you found it. Glad you liked the idea.
It was easy to find, I remembered reading it somewhere. Our common FR background also gave me a good starting point. ;-)
Thanks for the idea.
Bocklin
(As for the FAQ, I don't trust it. I've found that it is a poor guide to the rules, as several answers are simply wrong. Fortunately, it's not official errata, so it doesn't overrule the PHB.)No, it doesn't overrule the PHB, because the PHB doesn't use the same definition for "off-hand weapon" that you are using. As for whether the FAQ is "official" or not -- it's as official as you're going to get without Skip and Andy showing up at your house. WotC is plainly using the FAQ to add/clarify rules, barring the once-a-blue-moon polymorph gobbledygook.
In the DMG, there is a handy section talking about the precedence of sources. In said section, it notes that the rules in the Core Rulebooks take precedence over supplemental material, and so forth.
The list does not state that the errata supercede the rules in the Core Rulebooks, but it stands to reason that they should, since 'errata' are a list of errors (and corrections) in a printed book. As such, the errata corrects misprints in the core rulebooks (such as the omission of the statement that PrCs don't impose an XP penalty, or the contradiction about sundering magic weapons). (As an aside, it's also worth noting that the polymorph changes have no business whatsoever being in the errata documents - these are not errors that are being corrected, they are rules changes that are being implemented.)
The FAQ, by contrast, is a set of answers to "Frequently Asked Questions", and as such should be clarifying the rules as written, and neither changing nor expanding on them. Occasionally, mistakes slip through, since the compilers of the FAQ are only human, after all. However, where there is a contradiction, the correct course of action is already clear - if the FAQ disagrees with the Core Rules, then the Core Rules win.
That's what I meant by my statement that the FAQ does not overrule the PHB, and it applies independent of this debate.
Hi Delericho,
Not to get in the way of your discussion about precedence of sources, but I just wanted to point out that, in this case, the FAQ is not expending or changing the rules. It's actually building up on what is in the PHB and clarifying a point (what FAQs do).
From the reading of the PHB, it is easy to get confused about the issue at hand (hence my initial question). Then the FAQ kicks in to clarify how it works.
So, in this case, the FAQ is not making up new rules or changing old ones. It just clarifies.
Bocklin
Not to get in the way of your discussion about precedence of sources, but I just wanted to point out that, in this case, the FAQ is not expending or changing the rules. It's actually building up on what is in the PHB and clarifying a point (what FAQs do).
True (although I disagree with the FAQ's reasoning in this instance).
Anyway, I think I've said all I have to say on this topic now, so I'll bow out to not clutter the thread any further.
Maybe true, but have you ever wondered why Dwarves fight with oversized axes in small tunnels or elves use bows in forests (where vision and therefore range) is limited? ;-)(...)
If the idea is for a jungle fighter - won't the spike get hung up on the underbrush, vines, etc. (...) I don't say this to be critical - but rather to add some more items for consideration since the goal seems to be add flavor rather than optimization.
Well to be fair the use of bows as employed for war (in the European style) - required open fields of fire but skirmishers in real world have been using bows effectively in forest and jungle environments since their inception including for war - those peoples did however go to war in a very different style than Europeans (focusing more on the individual warrior than effective massed attacks) - and the model of an adventurer - or even a party is very different from that of an army.
The dwarven axe thing - I don't know that they fight exclusively or even predominantly in "small" tunnels. But even if they did that doesn't make spiked armor less ridiculous or the idea of using a two handed weapon AND grappling spiked armor concurrently less absurd.
And back to the point - although my experience in the jungle is VERY limited (I have only been trekking in the amazon jungle twice) spiked or razored armor would have been IMO a liability (armor at all would of well and truly sucked - until someone tried to hit you at least) - now if you want to enchant it to cut through thats different.
------------------------------
Not that it matters if you think it makes your game better, but can anyone out there thing of a people that actually used something that approaches the D&D conception of spiked armor. I've never seen any - just curious where the idea came from - and why people think it would be an asset. If anyone has an image from a historical source and they could post the link I would love to see it - maybe even have my mind changed as to the cheesiness of the stuff.
(...) But even if they did that doesn't make spiked armor less ridiculous or the idea of using a two handed weapon AND grappling spiked armor concurrently less absurd.(...)
It's not "grappling", it's using spikes as an off-hand light weapon.
:-)
Bocklin
PS: Thanks for your comments and the historical precisions.