I know that this combo was legal in 3.5, has anything changed in PFRPG to avoid it? I've looked around and have not found anything yet...
Seems like armor spikes can still be used as an off-hand weapon while leaving both hands free for any two-handed weapon...
Huh, just reread the relevant rules, and yeah it looks like you can still do this within the RAW, but if i was your dm I'd probly say no way, all though it is rather cool.
Huh, just reread the relevant rules, and yeah it looks like you can still do this within the RAW, but if i was your dm I'd probly say no way, all though it is rather cool.I know that this combo was legal in 3.5, has anything changed in PFRPG to avoid it? I've looked around and have not found anything yet...
Seems like armor spikes can still be used as an off-hand weapon while leaving both hands free for any two-handed weapon...
What about spiked gauntlet and greatsword (I don;t have my rulebook handy in case this is already covered.)
Yup it seems to me like you can.
oops didnt read spiked quantlet, yeah james your right, spiked gauntlest and greatsword doesnt work, only armour spikes and great sword.
It does not, on the TWF text it states "IF you have a Weapon in your off-hand".
I would rule against it: if you're using one weapon that takes both hands to wield, you can't use Two-Weapon Fighting.
You can not do TWF when your two hands are occupied with a single weapon, unless you grow a third arm. You need a complete limb set for each weapon.
where exactly does it say that?
Two-Weapon Fighting
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand...
That's pretty clear.
And it's ridiculous anyone would want to do something like that, and even worse that any GM would allow it.
Two-Weapon Fighting
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand...That's pretty clear.
And it's ridiculous anyone would want to do something like that, and even worse that any GM would allow it.
Well I got two seperate points. first go and have a reread of the text on armour spike:
Armor Spikes: You can have spikes added to your armor,
which allow you to deal extra piercing damage (see “spiked
armor” on Table 6–4) 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.
So yeah actualy youcould acording to the rules dual wield a great sword and armour spikes.
But as i have already stated earlier in this thread as a D.M. i would probably not allow it since i thinks its silly and sort abuses the rules. But then again if you think of it thats really the only way one could make any direct combat use of armour spikes cause your not gonna spike and board an lead a hand empty are you?
Only if you have 3 hands or can use the greatsword in just one.
Now you could swing with the greatsword then drop the greatsword and punch with the spiked gauntlet with an iterative attack, but not TWF with the pair.
-James
Actually you can use a greatsword and a spiked gauntlet together, or at least you could in 3.5. with iterative attacks and without dropping the greatsword. Page 44 of the FAQ gives the example of a character wielding a greataxe (twohanded), shifting the weapon to an offhand, drawing a dagger or a javelin (with quick draw) and attacking normally, all with the primary hand. The FAQ even points out that this is easier with a two-handed weapon specifically because you don't have to drop it. You can just shift it to the other hand.
The FAQ doesn't address two weapon fighting and spiked gauntlets specifically, but it would certainly be reasonable to infer that you could attack with a greatsword (twohanded) release the off hand (instead of the primary) and take the off hand attack. Or, on a related note, attack with a greatsword and kick, knee, or elbow, or punch, if you have TWF and Imp. Unarmed Strike.
As for spiked armor, what exactly is the abuse in using them in conjunction with a two handed weapon? That's pretty much the point. The term "off hand" in TWF shouldn't be taken to imply that in order to use it, you must literally have a weapon in a hand. The term "off hand" is used to denote an attack that is other than the primary attack. Not literally the other "hand."
Upon further consideration of the issue, I wouldn't disallow it, but I would say that disengaging the greatsword to bash with the spiked armor would provoke an AoO unless you had Improved Unarmed Strike - you are momentarily opening your guard / taking your sword out of play. Granted, there may be times that this will be to ones advantage, but those should be few. I would rule that it took up an attack, not count as an extra attack as per TWF or shield bash.
|
Page 44 of the FAQ gives the example of a character wielding a greataxe (twohanded), shifting the weapon to an offhand, drawing a dagger or a javelin (with quick draw) and attacking normally, all with the primary hand. The FAQ even points out that this is easier with a two-handed weapon specifically because you don't have to drop it. You can just shift it to the other hand.
Which FAQ are you referring to? :-m
Too bad you are already using your off-hand there isn't it? So, 2 weapon fighting with a 2-handed weapon is out. Iterative attacks I can understand, EXTRA attacks from 2-weapon fighting, I cannot.
Too bad you are already using your off-hand there isn't it? So, 2 weapon fighting with a 2-handed weapon is out. Iterative attacks I can understand, EXTRA attacks from 2-weapon fighting, I cannot.
Well I'd say theres an element of GM interpretion in it. Since it depends on you read the relevant bit of rule text:
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.
The thing is a great sword is not an off hand weapon. So its a matter of interpretaion whether that means a 2 hand weapon which also ocupies the off hand disqualifies one from using that atack.
So i guess unless we get some ofical ruling from the Paizo Rules Gods, we going to have to agree to disagree and let every GM do as we pleases.(techinacly thats true regardless of the rules but you know what i mean)
Too bad you are already using your off-hand there isn't it? So, 2 weapon fighting with a 2-handed weapon is out. Iterative attacks I can understand, EXTRA attacks from 2-weapon fighting, I cannot.Well I'd say theres an element of GM interpretion in it. Since it depends on you read the relevant bit of rule text:
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.
The thing is a great sword is not an off hand weapon. So its a matter of interpretaion whether that means a 2 hand weapon which also ocupies the off hand disqualifies one from using that atack.
So i guess unless we get some ofical ruling from the Paizo Rules Gods, we going to have to agree to disagree and let every GM do as we pleases.(techinacly thats true regardless of the rules but you know what i mean)
Well mate, I think it's pretty clear. 2-handed means using 2 hands, if u only have 2 hands then u can't use an offhand weapon. Since armor spikes are treated as such, you cannot use them. That's as clear as day to me.
If you do however want to use it like that, you will have to bend the rules, cause there is nothing in the book that coroborates your logic.
Speaking of logic. Ok so your logic is no spare hand=no other atack posible based on real world logic? Ok well armour spikes require no hand, they only require the game mechanic of an open slot. So it's not a matter of logic. Its matter of game mechanics. There is no logical reason why one couldnt atack with a two handed sword and an armourspike. Also bring real world logic into DnD rules debates is seldom a good idea, the game is a game an not a computer simulation of real combat so the only issues are do the rules alow it, does it break the games, and is the flavour something you want in your campaign.
Speaking of logic. Ok so your logic is no spare hand=no other atack posible based on real world logic? Ok well armour spikes require no hand, they only require the game mechanic of an open slot. So it's not a matter of logic. Its matter of game mechanics. There is no logical reason why one couldnt atack with a two handed sword and an armourspike. Also bring real world logic into DnD rules debates is seldom a good idea, the game is a game an not a computer simulation of real combat so the only issues are do the rules alow it, does it break the games, and is the flavour something you want in your campaign.
Answer is: No, the rules do not allow it and Yes it does break it.
I wasn't bringin real world logic, cause it isn't even possible to do so, specially not on D&D Scenarios.
It's in game logic, based on the rules only.
Two-Handed: Two hands are required to use a twohanded
melee weapon effectively.
|
|
By the words of the armor spikes rule, you cannot attack if you already made a off hand attack.
Armor Spikes: You can have spikes added to your armor,
which allow you to deal extra piercing damage (see “spiked
armor” on Table 6–4) 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.
By attacking with a greatsword, the attack is using your off-hand (two hands). This attack then activates the bold text stating you cannot attack with armor spikes.
Besides, this is just a silly rule wording twist like arcane bond wizard qualifying for dragon disciple.
Still ... the armor spikes are not on your hand (as the spiked gauntlet).
And you won't use the HAND as an secondary attack since it's holding on to the greatsword.
Can't it be like "Swing the Greatsword" and then "Smash into Opponent with Shoulder Spikes" ... provoking an AoO perhaps.
That would at least seem possible, from a logical standpoint.
I don't see any other way (perhaps someone else does) to use the armor spikes in combat (besides grapple).
If you follow the RAW strictly .. then no .. it's not possible and considered as cheese ;)
-TDL
I can just see the mighty fighter trying to chestbump his opponent to death.
I know that this combo was legal in 3.5, has anything changed in PFRPG to avoid it? I've looked around and have not found anything yet...
Seems like armor spikes can still be used as an off-hand weapon while leaving both hands free for any two-handed weapon...
Technically, yes you can. Visually, the character would be making elbow/knee strikes, shoulder blocks, etc. with the spiked armor in addition to swinging a two-handed weapon.
"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)."
A two-handed weapon is not considered an "off-hand weapon," so armor spikes can still be used for an "off-hand attack." There are some draw-backs, however. The penalties for Power Attack and Two-Weapon Fighting stack. Because armor spikes are technically not a true "off-hand weapon," they cannot benefit from Double Slice or Power Attack (some GMs may allow Power Attack, however). Also, the character will have to invest in both Str (two-handed weapon damage, Power Attack) and Dex (the Two-Weapon Fighting chain), which means that neither will be as high as a character investing in only one.
Also, the character will have to invest in both Str (two-handed weapon damage, Power Attack) and Dex (the Two-Weapon Fighting chain), which means that neither will be as high as a character investing in only one.I know that this combo was legal in 3.5, has anything changed in PFRPG to avoid it? I've looked around and have not found anything yet...
Seems like armor spikes can still be used as an off-hand weapon while leaving both hands free for any two-handed weapon...
Enter .. The Ranger .. he can have the two weapon fighting chain without the heavy dex requirements. Losing some feats the fighter can choose though.
-TDL
Also, the character will have to invest in both Str (two-handed weapon damage, Power Attack) and Dex (the Two-Weapon Fighting chain), which means that neither will be as high as a character investing in only one.Enter .. The Ranger .. he can have the two weapon fighting chain without the heavy dex requirements. Losing some feats the fighter can choose though.
"The benefits of the ranger's chosen style apply only when he wears light medium, or no armor. He loses all benefits of his combat style feats when wearing heavy armor." No shield, medium armor at best, no heavy investment in Dex, and no extra hp (from d12 HD and Rage like a barbarian)... Ouch!
A common house rule (I use it myself) is that armor spikes have reduced reach. They don't threaten adjacent squares so if you want to attack with them, you must enter your opponent's square (and possibly suffer an AoO for doing so).
"The benefits of the ranger's chosen style apply only when he wears light medium, or no armor. He loses all benefits of his combat style feats when wearing heavy armor." No shield, medium armor at best, no heavy investment in Dex, and no extra hp (from d12 HD and Rage like a barbarian)... Ouch!Also, the character will have to invest in both Str (two-handed weapon damage, Power Attack) and Dex (the Two-Weapon Fighting chain), which means that neither will be as high as a character investing in only one.Enter .. The Ranger .. he can have the two weapon fighting chain without the heavy dex requirements. Losing some feats the fighter can choose though.
Mithral Full Plate ?
Agreed .. it would cost another feat .. but if you're going to be a frontline Ranger .. you will want this armor someday.
Buy, I see your point. The idea might be nice ... but the investment in feats is a bit off. And still a little cheesy :P
-TDL
|
From the official D&D 3.5 FAQ found here. page 50
"Is a character wielding a two-handed reach weapon
(such as a longspear) and wearing spiked armor
threatening all squares within 10 feet? Assuming he has
Combat Reflexes, can he make an attack of opportunity
with his longspear and then with his armor spikes in the
same round?
within his normal reach (5 feet away). If he also wields a
longspear, he would also threaten all squares 10 feet away.
Any time a character wielding more than one weapon is
allowed an attack of opportunity, he can use any weapon that
threatens the opponent who has provoked the attack. In this
case, imagine an enemy who charged the character and then
tried to disarm him. The charge attack would provoke an attack
of opportunity from the longspear as the enemy moved out of a
threatened square (in order to move adjacent to the character
and deliver the charge attack). Then, the disarm attempt would
provoke another attack of opportunity (assuming the enemy
didn’t have Improved Disarm). This attack of opportunity could
be made only with the armor spikes, since the longspear
doesn’t threaten an adjacent enemy."
From the same FAQ page 44.
"Can a character with Quick Draw and a base attack
bonus of +6 or better make a melee attack with one weapon
and a ranged attack with another weapon in the same
round? What if the melee weapon requires two hands to
wield?
requires all the attacks to be made as the same kind of attack or
with the same kind of weapon.
A character with a base attack bonus of +6 or better holding
a longsword, for example, could make a melee attack with the
longsword (using his full base attack bonus), drop the
longsword (a free action), use Quick Draw to draw a dagger
(another free action), then throw the dagger (using his base
attack bonus –5). If the character had both hands free (for
instance, if he didn’t carry a light or heavy shield in his off
hand), he could even use Quick Draw to draw a bow (free
action), draw and nock an arrow (free action) and then shoot
the bow (using his base attack bonus –5).
This situation is actually improved if the melee weapon is a
two-handed weapon. A character can hold a two-handed
weapon in one hand; he just can’t attack with it while it’s held
like that. Thus, he wouldn’t even have to drop the weapon in
order to draw and throw the dagger. If Krusk the 6th-level
barbarian had Quick Draw, he could swing his greataxe (using
his full base attack bonus), then leave the axe in his off-hand
while drawing a javelin with his primary hand (free action), and
finally throw the javelin (using his base attack bonus –5). If
Krusk were drawing a ranged weapon that required two hands
to use (such as a bow), he’d have to drop his greataxe."
So it seems that the official 3.5 FAQ came down on the side of "cheese" ;) and I have not seen anything conclusive in Pathfinder (or from Paizo) to contradict these rulings.
Cheers
With that, I do agree.
Two-weapon fighting is a big, no no. Many can say there are no rules against it, I did state some on previous posts, but they are not really conclusive.
But there are no rules that say you CAN do it, not even inclonclusive ones.
|
|
Also from the 3.5 FAQ page 53.
"Just how and when can you use armor spikes? If you’re
using two weapons already, can you use armor spikes to
make a second off-hand attack? What if you’re using a
weapon and a shield? Can you use the armor spikes for an
off-hand attack and still get a shield bonus to Armor Class
from the shield? What if you use a two-handed weapon?
Can you wield the weapon in two hands and still make an
off-hand attack with the spikes? What are your options for
using armor spikes in a grapple? Can you use them when
pinned? If you have another light weapon, can you use that
and your armor spikes when grappling?
When you fight with more than one weapon, you gain an
extra attack. (Improved Two-Weapon Fighting and greater
Two-Weapon Fighting give you more attacks with the extra
weapon.) Armor spikes are a light weapon that can be used as
the extra weapon.
If you attack only with your armor spikes during your turn
(or use the armor spikes to make an attack of opportunity), you
use them just like a regular weapon. 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.
Whenever you use armor spikes as an off-hand weapon,
you suffer all the penalties for attacking with two weapons (see
Table 8–10 in the PH). When using armor spikes along with a
two-handed weapon, it is usually best to use the two-handed
weapon as your primary attack and the armor spikes as the offhand
weapon. You can use the armor spikes as the primary
weapon and the two-handed weapon as the off-hand attack, but
when you do so, you don’t get the benefit of using a light
weapon in your off hand.
You cannot, however, use your armor spikes to make a
second off-hand attack when you’re already fighting with two
weapons. If you have a weapon in both hands and armor spikes,
you can attack with the weapons in your hands (and not with
the armor spikes) or with one of the weapons in your hands and
the armor spikes (see the description of spiked armor in
Chapter 7 of the PH).
When grappling, you can damage your foe with your spikes
by making a regular grapple check (opposed by your foe’s
check). If you succeed, you deal piercing damage to your foe
(see Table 7–5 in the PH) rather than the unarmed strike
damage you’d normally deal when damaging your foe with a
grapple check. Since you can use armor spikes as a light
weapon, you can simply use them to attack your foe. You
suffer a –4 penalty on your attack roll when attacking with a
light weapon in a grapple (see page 156 in the PH), but if your
foe is bigger or stronger than you, this might prove a better
tactic than trying to deal damage through a grapple check
because there is no opposed roll to make—you just have to hit
your opponent’s Armor Class. You can’t attack with two
weapons when grappling, even when one of those weapons is
armor spikes (see the section on grappling in Chapter 8 of the
PH).
You can’t attack and damage your foe if he has you pinned.
If you break the pin and avoid being pinned again, you can go
back to attacking your foe. If your attack bonus is high enough
to allow multiple attacks, you might break the pin and then use
your remaining attack to damage your foe. To accomplish this,
you must first use an attack to break the pin. You can break a
pin using the Escape Artist skill, but trying to do so is a
standard action for you; once you use the standard action to
attempt escape, you can’t make any more attacks during your
turn."
And there is nothing in PF that supports it.
You can argue that there is nothing that says you can't. And I can argue that there is nothing that says you can, so...
I removed a post at the request of the poster.
And there is nothing in PF that supports it.
You can argue that there is nothing that says you can't. And I can argue that there is nothing that says you can, so...
Pretty sure Pathfinder defers to 3.5 rules when a rule for something doesn't exist in Pathfinder. That's the part of the whole "backwards compatible thing". Now, you may not "like" the rule that gives you a whopping 1d6 extra damage with an offhand attack (which you might not even be able to hit with, anyway, depending on your build), but that doesn't mean it's not technically legal. You can always house rule it.
Sorry mate, from where I'm standing it's technically Ilegal. If it was legal I would house rule it for sure.
Sorry mate, from where I'm standing it's technically Ilegal. If it was legal I would house rule it for sure.
You seem to be hung up on the term "off-hand." Off-hand attacks are not limited to things that are actual in a hand. Unarmed strikes can be "off-hand" attacks, but use a knee, elbow, foot, or even a head butt. They do not have to be made with a "hand."
As far a game balance goes, I really have a hard time seeing how using armor spikes, even in conjunction with a two-handed weapon, would get such a virulent response. The minuses associated with two weapon fighting, and the extra limitations imposed by Power Attack, are severe enough that it is more than balanced.
Finally, the idea that any and all rulings made in 3.5 are now null and void in Pathfinder is just silly. As far as I can tell, there are no rules changes that affect this issue. If there are, point them out. But if you really expect Paizo to revisit each and every previous ruling to simply say, "still the same," well, that's pretty unreasonable. The vast majority of the ruleset is the same, and the vast majority of the rulings will remain. It is only where the rules differ that a new ruling is likely to be made.
According to the Pathfinder SRD, it looks like you need a hand free to attack with armor spikes. If this seems odd, keep in mind that a human can threaten 5' out (and 5' straight up!) with the spikes, so I'm thinking that this is more of a spiked-bracer type set up like T.M.N.T's The Shredder, then it is a studded cod-piece (like Iron Maiden's Bruce Dickenson.)
Armor spikes:
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.
Weapon Classifications:
Light: A light weapon is used in one hand.
Two-Weapon Fighting:
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.
By 3.5 FAQ, it seems that armor spikes, and a few other things are more open. In Pathfinder, it really seems like you need a free hand (and limb) to use any weapon, even armor spikes. We might see a clarification in the future, but until then I would say that it is up to a DM to decide how much the 3.5 FAQ applies to Pathfinder.
I would suggest that if Armor Spikes are to be used as openly as the 3.5 FAQ suggests (knee attacks and such), that the range be limited. The idea of a Cloud Giant (15' space, +15' reach) whacking a creature 25' in the air using shoulder spikes starts to get a little - um - beyond fantastic.
Sorry mate, from where I'm standing it's technically Ilegal. If it was legal I would house rule it for sure.You seem to be hung up on the term "off-hand." Off-hand attacks are not limited to things that are actual in a hand. Unarmed strikes can be "off-hand" attacks, but use a knee, elbow, foot, or even a head butt. They do not have to be made with a "hand."
As far a game balance goes, I really have a hard time seeing how using armor spikes, even in conjunction with a two-handed weapon, would get such a virulent response. The minuses associated with two weapon fighting, and the extra limitations imposed by Power Attack, are severe enough that it is more than balanced.
Finally, the idea that any and all rulings made in 3.5 are now null and void in Pathfinder is just silly. As far as I can tell, there are no rules changes that affect this issue. If there are, point them out. But if you really expect Paizo to revisit each and every previous ruling to simply say, "still the same," well, that's pretty unreasonable. The vast majority of the ruleset is the same, and the vast majority of the rulings will remain. It is only where the rules differ that a new ruling is likely to be made.
I already pointed rules Jake, you just doesn't seem to mind. Two-handed weapons state that you need to use both hands to use it, if u are using both hands there are no limbs left to attack. Even if u used another part of your body to do it technically you can't, cause as the Spikes rules goes, u can't use it if u already attack with your off-hand, thus if u attack with a two handed weapon, u simply cannot do it, cause u used BOTH hands to attack.
And it IS game breaking, two-handed weapons cannot be used in one hand for a reason, they deal much more damage.
Besides, as stated by pretty much everyone here it's a really smelly Cheese.
And as I already pointed out, "off-hand" is not the same thing as "your other hand." Off hand attacks can be made with legs, knees, and other bodies if you have the feats for it. Off hand attacks can also be made with spiked armor. The core rulebook says so.
As for "game breaking," that's just silly. Fighting with 2 weapons provides a penalty to both attacks, effectively reducing the damage from each attack, as well as necessitating the use of one or two feats. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it game breaking, and it certainly doesn't make it cheese.
Well, do you think this is what the designers of the game had in mind when they made the two handed and two weapon fighting rules? If no, it's twisting the rules and I would call that cheese. If yes, then it's probably fine. In the end it's the individual DM's call. Nothing is written that states a DM -has- to explicitly abide by the RaW, as long as any houserules are made clear before gameplay starts. Just my opinion.
Sorry mate, from where I'm standing it's technically Ilegal. If it was legal I would house rule it for sure.You seem to be hung up on the term "off-hand." Off-hand attacks are not limited to things that are actual in a hand. Unarmed strikes can be "off-hand" attacks, but use a knee, elbow, foot, or even a head butt. They do not have to be made with a "hand."
As far a game balance goes, I really have a hard time seeing how using armor spikes, even in conjunction with a two-handed weapon, would get such a virulent response. The minuses associated with two weapon fighting, and the extra limitations imposed by Power Attack, are severe enough that it is more than balanced.
Finally, the idea that any and all rulings made in 3.5 are now null and void in Pathfinder is just silly. As far as I can tell, there are no rules changes that affect this issue. If there are, point them out. But if you really expect Paizo to revisit each and every previous ruling to simply say, "still the same," well, that's pretty unreasonable. The vast majority of the ruleset is the same, and the vast majority of the rulings will remain. It is only where the rules differ that a new ruling is likely to be made.
I already pointed rules Jake, you just doesn't seem to mind. Two-handed weapons state that you need to use both hands to use it, if u are using both hands there are no limbs left to attack. Even if u used another part of your body to do it technically you can't, cause as the Spikes rules goes, u can't use it if u already attack with your off-hand, thus if u attack with a two handed weapon, u simply cannot do it, cause u used BOTH hands to attack.
And it IS game breaking, two-handed weapons cannot be used in one hand for a reason, they deal much more damage.
Besides, as stated by pretty much everyone here it's a really smelly Cheese.
I am pretty sure in the 3.5 FAQ, The Sage also states that you can easily release a hand from a two-handed weapon to perform whatever it is you wanted with that hand, such as spellcasting. You just can't attack with the weapon until you put your hand back on it.
And I believe he said releasing one hand from a two-handed weapon (or placing it back) was a FREE ACTION, and you can take as many free actions as you want on your turn, subject to DM discretion.
If I find it, I will post it here. But I am sure he said it. Even if he didn't, it should NOT take a Move Action to release a hand from a two-handed weapon. You could house-rule it as a Swift Action if you want, but no way is it going to be a Move Action.
Also, 2-handed weapons don't really deal that much damage unless in conjunction with Power Attack and a really high Strength score. Someone with 6 attacks from Greater TWF can pull off more damage than the two-handed wielder most of the time. So I would not say it's unbalanced to allow a two-handed wielder the ability to use armor spikes as an off-hand attack. I've seen much worse broken combos than that, that's laughable at the most.
So, according to you, if a Monk were to wield a Quarterstaff as a weapon, they're not allowed to make an Unarmed Strike as an "off-hand" attack because they're wielding a quarterstaff? So, you mean to tell me I can't whack you with a staff and follow it up with a roundhouse kick while holding a staff in my hands? I have to drop the quarterstaff in order to do a roundhouse? That's a load of garbage if you ask me. Because that's what it sounds like you're saying.
|
Yes, it is a totally acceptable fighting style.
-Primary/Off hand don't have to be physical hands as we have read. There is a Primary slot (that can be filled with a two handed weapon) and a off hand slot (that can be filled with armor spikes). You can even attack with your two handed weapon, release one hand to draw a dagger, and attack with that (off hand). If you have quick draw and you are willing to incur the two weapon fighting penalties.
-They clearly and specifically state that you can do exactly what OP is asking.
-It was the intention of the game designers to allow you to do this. This fact is the most important to me. There is no cheese involved.
|
|
Pretty sure Pathfinder defers to 3.5 rules when a rule for something doesn't exist in Pathfinder. That's the part of the whole "backwards compatible thing". Now, you may not "like" the rule that gives you a whopping 1d6 extra damage with an offhand attack (which you might not even be able to hit with, anyway, depending on your build), but that doesn't mean it's not technically legal. You can always house rule it.
+1
You seem to be hung up on the term "off-hand." Off-hand attacks are not limited to things that are actual in a hand. Unarmed strikes can be "off-hand" attacks, but use a knee, elbow, foot, or even a head butt. They do not have to be made with a "hand."
As far a game balance goes, I really have a hard time seeing how using armor spikes, even in conjunction with a two-handed weapon, would get such a virulent response. The minuses associated with two weapon fighting, and the extra limitations imposed by Power Attack, are severe enough that it is more than balanced.Finally, the idea that any and all rulings made in 3.5 are now null and void in Pathfinder is just silly. As far as I can tell, there are no rules changes that affect this issue. If there are, point them out. But if you really expect Paizo to revisit each and every previous ruling to simply say, "still the same," well, that's pretty unreasonable. The vast majority of the ruleset is the same, and the vast majority of the rulings will remain. It is only where the rules differ that a new ruling is likely to be made.
Also +1
According to the Pathfinder SRD, it looks like you need a hand free to attack with armor spikes...
Armor spikes:
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.Weapon Classifications:
Light: A light weapon is used in one hand.Two-Weapon Fighting:
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.By 3.5 FAQ, it seems that armor spikes, and a few other things are more open. In Pathfinder, it really seems like you need a free hand (and limb) to use any weapon, even armor spikes. We might see a clarification in the future, but until then I would say that it is up to a DM to decide how much the 3.5 FAQ applies to Pathfinder.
This is an interesting comment because if you actually do a side by side comparison of the entries for Armor Spikes, Weapon Classifications and Two Weapon Fighting in both the 3.5 Player's Handbook and Pathfinder Core Rulebook they are identical save for one sentence.
The Two Weapon Fighting entry in the Player's Handbook reads, "Fighting in this way is very hard, however, and you suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand."
The entry in the Pathfinder Rulebook reads, "You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way."
That is the sum of the differences. How exactly does this mean that the 3.5 rules were more "open" than the Pathfinder rules?
The idea of a Cloud Giant (15' space, +15' reach) whacking a creature 25' in the air using shoulder spikes starts to get a little - um - beyond fantastic.
I fail to see the relevancy of reach in this argument. A creature's reach is only ever affected by the use of designated reach weapons. A creature that can reach 15' can do so with his unarmed attack. Adding any non-reach weapons makes no difference to his actual reach. There is no difference regarding reach if the Cloud Giant uses a dagger or a greatsword (even a large sized version). If the creature can naturally reach there with his unarmed attack, what difference does it make if he can use his armor spikes?
I already pointed rules Jake, you just doesn't seem to mind. Two-handed weapons state that you need to use both hands to use it, if u are using both hands there are no limbs left to attack. Even if u used another part of your body to do it technically you can't, cause as the Spikes rules goes, u can't use it if u already attack with your off-hand, thus if u attack with a two handed weapon, u simply cannot do it, cause u used BOTH hands to attack.
And it IS game breaking, two-handed weapons cannot be used in one hand for a reason, they deal much more damage.Besides, as stated by pretty much everyone here it's a really smelly Cheese.
So your argument is based upon restating the same opinion over and over again, mixed with making derogatory comments about how other people might interpret the rules?
Your argument doesn't even agree with itself. First you tell someone they are wrong in their interpretation, that there are no rules to back up their assertions while telling them what the "real" answer is. Then when someone provides official rules interpretations as a counter point to your opinions, you counter with the assertion that the rules don't support or deny either sides argument. So why is it that the OP should listen to your interpretation again? What makes your interpretation the valid one? Is it because you use derogatory terms to describe the other sides interpretations?
I get the feeling that if Mr. Buhlman himself popped into this thread and clarified Pathfinder's official position in this matter, and this position didn't mesh with your interpretation, you would resort to calling his opinion "cheesy".
It is my opinion that you a trolling this thread.
As for "game breaking," that's just silly. Fighting with 2 weapons provides a penalty to both attacks, effectively reducing the damage from each attack, as well as necessitating the use of one or two feats. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it game breaking, and it certainly doesn't make it cheese.
+1
Well, do you think this is what the designers of the game had in mind when they made the two handed and two weapon fighting rules? If no, it's twisting the rules and I would call that cheese. If yes, then it's probably fine. In the end it's the individual DM's call. Nothing is written that states a DM -has- to explicitly abide by the RaW, as long as any houserules are made clear before gameplay starts. Just my opinion.
Which designers are you referring to? The designers of the 3.5 rule set made it explicitly clear what there intent was via the official 3.5 FAQ. If you are referring to the Pathfinder designers, since they didn't see fit to change any of the relevant wording and have not released any thing to contradict the 3.5 FAQ, one can reasonably assume that they aren't ruling any differently than the 3.5 designers intended. Will a Pathfinder specific FAQ result in a different interpretation? Maybe. Until that happens we can only rely on the previous precedents. Of course some posters apparently think they have an inside track to the minds of the designers of Pathfinder.
The OP was specifically asking if there were any changes to the RAW, not about how everyone house rules armor spikes in their home game.
I am pretty sure in the 3.5 FAQ, The Sage also states that you can easily release a hand from a two-handed weapon to perform whatever it is you wanted with that hand, such as spellcasting. You just can't attack with the weapon until you put your hand back on it...
I already posted the relevant bits further up this thread, including the part of the FAQ the specifically and conclusively detailed the 3.5 designer's intentions. If the Pathfinder designers are planning on ruling differently than the 3.5 FAQ, they have done a poor job of indicating this in the Core Rulebook.
Boy isn't this a switch. You and I agree on this one Dork Lord.
I know, right? The apocalypse is surely upon us, hehe.