It seems like people are not understanding what I am saying.
The fact is, you CAN make attacks with as many weapons as you want during a full attack, be it unarmed, two handed, dagger, dart, knee, headbutt, bow or whatever comes to mind.
My issue is with using TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING rules with a two-handed weapon. And yes IT IS cheese, and IT IS overpowered. Having your Strength x2.5 in 2 non-iterative attacks is a little too much if u ask me, but hey, it's your game, do what you like.
"The penalties are too much", I don't see how, and what penalties are we talking about exactly? Cause if this rule flies I would say it's -2 in each attack, not so much for that much more damage.
You would outdamage ANY other melee build, and it wouldn't be by a small amount either, even a guy with too weapons that are not light would have MORE penalties AND would deal much less damage.
I DO understand what "off-hand" means, and everywhere I look it states that IF you use your offhand for an Attack you cannot use it for another EXTRA one, that's what I've been saying all the time.
And since you DO need your "off-hand" for an attack with a Two-handed weapon, how could u get an extra?
And on a side note, the rules that existed before Pathfinder ARE void to this discussion. Assuming the FAQ from a previous edition is not an argument. It's like using a 3.0 ruling to prove a point, it has no merit, thus it is void.
You could argue over the rules on the Pathfinder core, as many have done here and got pretty close to proving a point, or at least a "reasonable" interpretation of the rules.
I think I made myself pretty clear now.
My issue is with using TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING rules with a two-handed weapon. And yes IT IS cheese, and IT IS overpowered. Having your Strength x2.5 in 2 non-iterative attacks is a little too much if u ask me, but hey, it's your game, do what you like.
I completely agree with you, Xum.
As an extreme stretch of the rules (IMHO), I would allow a Greatsword + Spiked Armor Two-Weapon Fighting combo only with this condition:
'Since you are using the Two-Weapon Fighting Full Attack, the attack with your Primary hand uses only your Str x1.0 (and if using Power Attack, it benefits only from the 2:1 ratio)- as if using a One-Handed weapon - , and you use the Spiked Armor as normal (Off-Hand light weapon, bonus Str x0.5, Power Attack Ratio 1:1).'
I know that it's an house rule - but it's the only way I would allow such a combo.
No Str x2 (technically, Xum, it's not Str x2.5, since you would use Str x1.5 with the Greatsword and Str x0.5 with the Spiked Armor, but as I said above, I completely agree with your point), and especially no Power Attack with a 4:1 ratio (3:1 with the Greatsword and 1:1 with the Spiked Armor). After all, the best a Two-Weapon Fighter can use is Str x1.5 (1.0 from Main Hand and 0.5 from Off-Hand) and Power Attack Ratio 3:1 (2:1 from Main Hand and 1:1 from Off-Hand)- exactly like a Two-Handed Weapon Fighter - , so no 'squeeze bonuses' for me.
Just my 2c.
The Str x2.5 is from Weapon slice, ya?
And you just pointed out the cheesiest thing of it is the power attack, it's montruous. Geez.
Thanks for your support against the cheese. ;)
[QUOTE/]
'Since you are using the Two-Weapon Fighting Full Attack, the attack with your Primary hand uses only your Str x1.0 (and if using Power Attack, it benefits only from the 2:1 ratio)- as if using a One-Handed weapon - , and you use the Spiked Armor as normal (Off-Hand light weapon, bonus Str x0.5, Power Attack Ratio 1:1).'
I would also apply the penalties for using the two-handed weapon in one hand as you would now be using that off hand for it's own attacks
As an extreme stretch of the rules (IMHO), I would allow a Greatsword + Spiked Armor Two-Weapon Fighting combo only with this condition:'Since you are using the Two-Weapon Fighting Full Attack, the attack with your Primary hand uses only your Str x1.0 (and if using Power Attack, it benefits only from the 2:1 ratio)- as if using a One-Handed weapon - , and you use the Spiked Armor as normal (Off-Hand light weapon, bonus Str x0.5, Power Attack Ratio 1:1).'
I know that it's an house rule - but it's the only way I would allow such a combo.
I don't think this would be a house rule, but the way it works already. See that:
Double Weapons: Dire flails, dwarven urgroshes, gnome hooked hammers, orc double axes, quarterstaves, and two-bladed swords are double weapons. A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.
The character can also choose to use a double weapon two-handed, attacking with only one end of it. A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.
It's similar to the case we're discussing in the sense that the double weapon is held in two hands like the greatsword but the system treats it as one-handed plus light off-hand weapon if you two-weapon fight with it. If used as a 2-hander then you cannot TWF in my opinion.
editted:I think getting in the damage dice of the greatsword is enough of a benefit, and you don't even need a feat EWP:(insert double weapon here).
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.
Note that said monk could flurry with the quarterstaff(efectively TWFing) and use his elbows or whatever but he would apply 1X STR mod to all attacks, not 1.5X.
Or he could use iterative attacks to whack someone with the quarterstaf two handed(1.5X STR) and then kick or headbutt(1X STR). But then he is not TWFing.
The rules balance themselves if we look at the numbers. Two handing allows to apply more strength to your blows, Two weapon fighting allows you to attack more times. Trying to get both benefits at the same time is not fair game in my opinion.
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.Note that said monk could flurry with the quarterstaff(efectively TWFing) and use his elbows or whatever but he would apply 1X STR mod to all attacks, not 1.5X.
Or he could use iterative attacks to whack someone with the quarterstaf two handed(1.5X STR) and then kick or headbutt(1X STR). But then he is not TWFing.
The rules balance themselves if we look at the numbers. Two handing allows to apply more strength to your blows, Two weapon fighting allows you to attack more times. Trying to get both benefits at the same time is not fair game in my opinion.
oh good then i am not insane
Note that said monk could flurry with the quarterstaff(efectively TWFing) and use his elbows or whatever but he would apply 1X STR mod to all attacks, not 1.5X.
Are you refering to a monk using Two Weapon Fighting, or Flurry of Blows? Flurry has a special clause in it that all attacks get 1xstr, and even goes out of its say to specify that it applies even if the weapon is held in two hands.
Please note that a monk using the Two Weapon Fighting feats is not the same as a monk using Flurry of Blows. Also note that a monk can not use their unarmed strikes for off-hand attacks when using Two Weapon Fighting feats as the rules say "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed."
Are you refering to a monk using Two Weapon Fighting, or Flurry of Blows? Flurry has a special clause in it that all attacks get 1xstr, and even goes out of its say to specify that it applies even if the weapon is held in two hands.
Note that said monk could flurry with the quarterstaff(efectively TWFing) and use his elbows or whatever but he would apply 1X STR mod to all attacks, not 1.5X.
In that post, as a whole, I'm mentioning the options for a monk in the described scenario. He is holding a quarterstaff with two hands and it's not mentioned anywhere that he has any other feat from the TWF chain but the virtual ones he gets with flurry of blows.
In the sentence you quoted I say flurry and I mean flurry.
Please note that a monk using the Two Weapon Fighting feats is not the same as a monk using Flurry of Blows.
No, it's not.
A monk that bothered to take the TWF feats could use them with any weapon he was proficient with, not only flurryable ones. And would apply 1X STR to one handed ones, 0.5X STR to the ones wielded in his off-hand. With the exception of the unarmed strike that deals full STR damage because it's a class feature of the monk.If he ever tried to use a two handed weapon and TWF using an unarmed strike he would be exactly in the situation it's being discussed in this thread.
+ 1.5X STR per iterative attack is a hard limit of the game IMO. Either you apply it full with a 2-hander or split into 1X for the main hand 0.5X for the off-hand when two weapon fighting.
Also note that a monk can not use their unarmed strikes for off-hand attacks when using Two Weapon Fighting feats as the rules say "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed."
That just makes no sense to me.
Unarmed Strike: At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes.
off-hand, fluff aside just means: you just apply 0.5X STR to extra attacks provided by TWF.
Monks get to ignore this limitation twice, when flurrying(with whatever flurry weapon they use) and when using an unarmed strike.Other classes can use a feat to get the same BTW: Double Slice
To Sum up, to the original Poster:
No, you cannot do this.
Armor Spikes are not a full body attack, like Unarmed Strike. Unarmed Strike SPECIFICALLY says it uses the whole body. Armor Spikes, in turn, note that they are treated as a light weapon.
Ergo, you must have a limb free to use Armor Spikes as your secondary attack, and since you are using a Greatsword, you cannot do so.
The posted example of the Greatsword guy drawing and using a Javelin was erroneous. The situation there is showcasing use of Iterative Attacks, NOT off-hand attacks.
You can remove a hand from your Greatsword and make an attack with your spikes, if you like. Note that it takes a move action to reacquire and prep your Greatsword for an attack afterwards, so I'm not sure why you'd do this.
Monks have special rules for TWF and FLurry that are not part of this debate, unless you might be playing an Eberron Monk/Paladin who can wear armor while using IUS. In any case, Armor Spikes aren't listed under Monk weapons and so are not eligible for FLurry.
===
As a special note, approving this violates all the rules on Strength and interacting with TWF, essentially giving you 2xStr instead of 1.5, for no cost. From a balance standpoint, it violates things; from an intentions standpoint, it clearly is a loophole based on personal interpretation at the best; and by strict reading of the rules, it just doesn't work.
===Aelryinth
Some people seem to be trying to compare a character who has taken two weapon fighting to a character that has no combat feats at all. Of course using a greatsword and armor spikes is going to be better than using just a greatsword. The fighter used a feat to do it. If it wasn't an advantage, why take the feat? Isn't that the whole point of feats? You don't think that greatsword puls Power Attack is better than just greatsword?
Concerns about using a two handed weapon in conjunction with spiked armor simply don't pan out. A two handed fighter with a 18 strength, wielding a greatsword does 13 pts of damage on average per strike. The same character with TWF and armor spikes sees his average damage increase by 4.5, but since he's hitting with 10% less frequency on both attacks his average effective damage is 11.7 + 4.05 for 15.75 pts of damage, which makes the feat worth a whopping 2.75 pts of additional damage, hardly game breaking. And that's before adding in the opportunity cost of taking TWF instead of something else. The Two Handed fighter who chooses Power Attack, for example, in place of TWF, effectively trades 5% of his normal damage, or .65 pts, for 3 additional points from power attack, a net gain of 2.35 pts while raising his overall damage to 15.35 pts of damage, for a total difference of .4 pts of damage. At 4th level, the Two handed fighter passes the Two Weapon fighter by 2 pts of damage, and continues to increase by over 2 pts every 4 lvls.
And none of that takes into account the fact that the two weapon fighter needs a full attack action, while the two handed fighter uses only a standard one.
Adding double slice, btw, requires a second feat, and adds, at most, 2 pts of damage at an 18 str. The Two Weapon fighter with TWF and Double Slice does 4.75 points (actually just a little less than that) more than a character with the same stats and no feats at all. Less than 5 pts for two feats? Hard to see that as game breaking.
When the two weapon fighter adds Double slice, the two handed fighter adds Cleave. Again a full action vs. a standard action. Cleave's effectiveness depends on how often the character hits so it's difficult to quantify (at least for me), but if you assume that both characters have an 18 str and would hit 50% of the time at base BAB with a single weapon attack, then the Two weapon fighter with a great sword, armor spikes, TWF and Double Slice will do (5.2+2.6) 7.8 pts on avg. per round (with a full attack action), while the Two handed fighter with a great sword, Power Attack and Cleave will do (7.2) 7.2 pts of damage on a single opponent (again with a standard action) and an additional 3.6 pts on average per rd if a second opponent is present. Again with only a standard action. Not really sure how one being slightly better against a single opponent while the other is much better against multiple opponents counts as "cheese." And again, the two handed fighter passes the two weapon fighter at 4th lvl.
As a final note, if you don't like something because it just strikes you wrong, well that's one thing. It's your game, play it the way you want. But when you start tossing around words like "game balance" and "cheese," you really ought to have a more well thought out argument than "me no like."
Yes, actually you can. From the 3.5 FAQTo Sum up, to the original Poster:
No, you cannot do this.
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.
Unless you can show a rules change in the PF Ruleset, you can, in fact, combine Armor Spikes with a shield or with a two handed weapon.
|
Yes, actually you can. From the 3.5 FAQTo Sum up, to the original Poster:
No, you cannot do this.
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.Unless you can show a rules change in the PF Ruleset, you can, in fact, combine Armor Spikes with a shield or with a two handed weapon.
Unless it's in a PFRPG FAQ, that 3.5 FAQ reference means nothing more than an argument reference, not a set ruling.
This is a board for PFRPG rules, not 3.5 system.Yes, actually you can. From the 3.5 FAQTo Sum up, to the original Poster:
No, you cannot do this.
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.Unless you can show a rules change in the PF Ruleset, you can, in fact, combine Armor Spikes with a shield or with a two handed weapon.
And PFRPG is backwards compatible, as you well know.
Until the 3.5 Faq are overruled, the rules quoted in this thread are RAW. You are free to disagree with them, and to ban them in your own games, but if you post on a public board you need to take them into account.
Aelyrinth - where do you think you're pulling these "rulings" out of? Do you seriously imagine your opinion counts as RAW? If not, then your statements are evidently, 100% false. The RAW state that these things are legit. You can disagree with them, but you cannot cite rules where there are none. Can you?
This thread reminds me very much of "Lance Silliness" over yonder. The only silliness, in both threads, is that of die-hard realists who don't like the rules as they are, and so impose their own opinions as "rules" (nerfing the weaker melee classes in the process), while labelling the rules themselves "cheese" - a flavoursome term indeed, but a term which is entirely a matter of personal taste and which does not constitute a decent argument.
The rules allow greatswords and armour spikes. I don't allow that it games I run, but that doesn't change the fact that the rules allow it. Deal with it. Pretending the rules aren't there is the worst kind of ostrich head-burying, flat-earth insisting tomfoolery.
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.
+1
+1Well 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.
-1.
Read the Faq quoted in this thread. Disagree with them if you like, but there is no ignoring them.
The rules are crystal clear. Whether you agree with them, and wish to use them, is another matter entirely.
Now, one day, we may get a PFRPG Faq. That would be lovely. Until then, the game is backwards compatible, and therefore the 3.5 Faq are legitimate.
Here's some advice, which I think will be helpful:
(1) Read the Faq. Seriously, go and do it.
(2) Consider the balance of classes. Melee classes are - without exception - lower-tier. That means they need a boost. Every time you slap them down with simulationist arguments, you are weakening the weak. Are you slapping down the casters on simulationist grounds? No, didn't think so. Have a think about what that imbalance does to the game.
Once you've done those two things, come back here and post, by all means. You'll be much the wiser, and your handling of the rules will be much the better for the experience.
The same character with TWF and armor spikes sees his average damage increase by 4.5, but since he's hitting with 10% less frequency on both attacks his average effective damage is 11.7 + 4.05 for 15.75 pts of damage, which makes the feat worth a whopping 2.75 pts of additional damage, hardly game breaking.
Your math isnt right, a -2 tohit isnt a -10% to your damage, its more than 10%. For example if you needed a 6 to hit you have a 75% chance to hit and a minus 2 takes you to a %65% chance to hit. So in your example of doing 13 damage and 4.5 damage, when you take into account the hit chance you end up with an average damage of 9.75 per round. Now your dual wielding goes to 8.45 and 2.95, so a net gain of 1.65 damage per round.
So with power attack you do an average of 10.4 damage, so 1 less damage than dual wielding with the armor spikes. The problem comes down to the feats and class features though, since the armor spike is going to have a lower tohit damage and less damage bonus than the greatsword the damage bonus from it isnt that great considering it only kicks in on full attacks.
I havent run the numbers, but I am pretty sure you do less damage in the long run trying to dual wield a greatsword and spiked armor instead of two of the same weapon.
+1Well 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.
So you think armor spikes take a hand, despite their description? The rules for the item are what they state. A twohanded weapon is not an offhand weapon, if it was it would really suck.
As a fighter, wielding 2 identical weapons (such as the ever classic double longswords) offers the opportunity to stretch your feats even further- Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Melee Mastery, Greater Focus, Greater Weapon Specialization, Weapon Supremacy; Then you add in fighter goodies from PFRPG-Heavy Blade Training and Weapon Mastery. It all makes for a very scary pair of blades.
With a single two-handed weapon, you only gain these benefits for the one weapon, but you free up gobs of cash for not needing the second weapon. I can see the spiked kneepads argument, I just think its more of a flavor thing than true efficiency increase.
You could get monkey grip and wield the greatsword one-handed while punching with said spikes with the other. Its comical but it would work.
So let's get this straight:
According to RAW (if you use 3.5 FAQ as well):
-You can use armor spikes as an off-hand weapon when wielding a 2-handed weapon.
-You can use armor spikes as an off-hand weapon when wielding a weapon and shield
-You can use armor spikes as an off-hand weapon when wielding a longbow
But you can't use armor spikes as an off-hand weapon when wielding two weapons.
Weather you agree or disagree on the ruling of armor spikes, there is no doubt that two-weapon fighters get the shaft on this one if you allow armor spikes as an off-hand attack in conjunction with the other three attack styles essentially giving them the primary ability of the two-weapon fighter which is more attacks.
Either the rules should support giving all styles the extra attack from armor spikes or they should not give it to any. It is sad that the FAQ don't recognize this. I may be wrong, but I doubt the 3.5 FAQ hold up in PFS play, and if they don't hold up in organized play, they don't matter for RAW.
Saying that a two-weapon fighter can make an attack with armor spikes even though both hands are occupied wielding a weapon ,
that a sword and board fighter can do the same even though both of his hands are occupied doing something ,
and than a longbow wielding fighter can do the same even though both of his hands are wielding the bow ,
and then saying that a fighter wielding a weapon in each hand cannot use armor spikes in this way because both of his hands are occcupied , is just ridiculous.
Regardless of the rules... doesn't this combo working as described kind of defeat the whole concept of TWF vs THF? Why would you ever do anything -but- this combo when you can have the best of both worlds?
Here's some advice, which I think will be helpful:
(1) Read the Faq. Seriously, go and do it.(2) Consider the balance of classes. Melee classes are - without exception - lower-tier. That means they need a boost. Every time you slap them down with simulationist arguments, you are weakening the weak. Are you slapping down the casters on simulationist grounds? No, didn't think so. Have a think about what that imbalance does to the game.
Once you've done those two things, come back here and post, by all means. You'll be much the wiser, and your handling of the rules will be much the better for the experience.
I think you should stop trying to be ignorant in an elegant manner.
This isn't slapping down melee classes at all, it's a matter of how much cheese/munchkin you want to keep throwing in the direction of a 2-handed fighter, who is already the best build in the melee world. There's nothing simulationist about agreeing a typical character race in PFRPG does NOT have 3 hands.
Even if you go by the 3.5 Faq, you're then TWF'ing and suffer the appropriate penalties.
When exactly is melee a lower tier? After level 6? After level 10? It's lower tier when you make it that way, either as an overbearing DM or as a player who probably screwed up his character build.
I think you should stop trying to be ignorant in an elegant manner.
This isn't slapping down melee classes at all, it's a matter of how much cheese/munchkin you want to keep throwing in the direction of a 2-handed fighter, who is already the best build in the melee world. There's nothing simulationist about agreeing a typical character race in PFRPG does NOT have 3 hands.
Even if you go by the 3.5 Faq, you're then TWF'ing and suffer the appropriate penalties.
When exactly is melee a lower tier? After level 6? After level 10? It's lower tier when you make it that way, either as an overbearing DM or as a player who probably screwed up his character build.
Not ignorant. A bit patronising, though, for which apologies.
Yes, melee is lower tier from about level 6 - maybe 5, maybe 7: depends on the spellcasters, their spell choices and general canniness.
It's lower tier unless you make an effort for it not to be. That isn't an effort you (and a couple of others) appear to be making here or in the lance thread. In fact, you're doing the opposite: you're bringing in "physics" and accusations of "cheese" ("Cheese" ahoy! Told you that "argument" came up rather often) against the melee classes, but not against the spellcasters.
I'm not saying greatsword-and-spiked armour is pretty, but it is rules as written, and - contrary to all accusations of cheese - it's not overpowered. Pretty weak cheese, in other words.
That only leaves realism as an argument against, and as many people have pointed out in these two threads, shifting the game towards simulationism weakens fighter-types (who rely on mundane attacks and defenses) and not spellcasters (whose core potencies are immune to such nerfing).
Yes, melee is lower tier from about level 6 - maybe 5, maybe 7: depends on the spellcasters, their spell choices and general canniness.
I still say that's dependent on the DM/Player, perhaps even the adventure in question.
That only leaves realism as an argument against, and as many people have pointed out in these two threads, shifting the game towards simulationism weakens fighter-types (who rely on mundane attacks and defenses) and not spellcasters (whose core potencies are immune to such nerfing).
All cheese/OP/munchkin comments aside, this is how D&D has been since creation. This is the case even in the overly controversial 4E where melee characters have "powers" and such. They're still dependent on weapons and armor to do their job, much like a caster is dependent on components and spell books/Foci/Holy Symbols, etc.
True simulationism(making words up now, lol) would take us back to 1E where items had to save individually and then add in durability... no one really wants to play in that level of realism, its really NOT fun.
Spell casters DO catch a few relatively large nerfs around 5-6th level via monsters... fire & lightning resist/immunity and spell resistance, which makes their job more difficult for limited amount of spells per day; when a fighter can keep on trucking until he runs out of health. *shrug*
------------------------------------------------
As a player currently playing a character in spiked armor, the thought is intriguing, but I'm honestly not sure carrying a Faq around with me and 'rules lawyer'ing' it every time I game at a different table is an idea situation. (Besides he's not built for TWF.)
But you can't use armor spikes as an off-hand weapon when wielding two weapons.
Where are you seeing a rule that stops them from working when wielding two weapons?
There is a rule that prevents you from making two offhand attacks, but that doesnt stop you from holding two weapons.
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.Note that said monk could flurry with the quarterstaff(efectively TWFing) and use his elbows or whatever but he would apply 1X STR mod to all attacks, not 1.5X.
Or he could use iterative attacks to whack someone with the quarterstaf two handed(1.5X STR) and then kick or headbutt(1X STR). But then he is not TWFing.
The rules balance themselves if we look at the numbers. Two handing allows to apply more strength to your blows, Two weapon fighting allows you to attack more times. Trying to get both benefits at the same time is not fair game in my opinion.
I used a Monk as an example, but I wasn't talking about Flurry of Blows or anything as such. I probably should've said a Fighter or Ranger witha quarterstaff to avoid the confusion. It's just that for some reason Xum thinks you can't make an "off-hand" attack unless you have a free hand, which is not the entire meaning of "off-hand" attack.
His argument is it's too cheesy to allow a two-handed wielder to attack with armor spikes using TWF rules. I say he must be really busy trying to work out the kinks from every part of 3.5e/PRPG cause there's more than enough "cheese" to find. I don't think there's any cheese to it at all, just a unique fighting style. Not every warrior takes TWF or has the Dexterity to do it so this isn't going to be common. And if it is, I've seen much worse for a group of players to do anyway. Also, if you have a group of players with warriors trying pull this off, then the DM needs to establish some control or he just has bad players.
As for IRL, if I wear a suit of armor with spikes and I was an experienced warrior wielding a greatsword, no "game mechanic" can stop me and say I can't swing my greatsword at you, followed by a body twist with a spiked-arm extended out ready to slap you, followed by a reverse swing and then shoving my spiked-shoulder into you after leveraging down the return sword swing. It can be done.
I used a Monk as an example, but I wasn't talking about Flurry of Blows or anything as such. I probably should've said a Fighter or Ranger witha quarterstaff to avoid the confusion. It's just that for some reason Xum thinks you can't make an "off-hand" attack unless you have a free hand, which is not the entire meaning of "off-hand" attack.
Yes, it was a bit confusing. Sometimes, trying to make a point that is crystal clear on our heads we just end in a bigger mess in the end.
It happens to me all the time.I thought that adding the monk's abilities into this discussion would only complicate the thing. Thus my post.
And yes, we agree in that off-hand is a wider concept than just "your other hand".
It can be done.
Enough evidence has been provided to prove this. It cannot be rebutted and I won't try.
Its only that allowing this innocent combination opens the possibility to other not so innocent combos. Pathfinder offers new feats that were not in 3.5 or that work differenly. New interactions just mean new ways to bend the rules for those who want to do it.
As you well point out, not all players have the same degree of maturity. Sometimes it's just better to kill the dog to end the rabies.
just to change this topic a bit, I know of a ranger (low level now so only 1 attack per round) using a bow with armour spikes (which he uses of AoO)which i think is not possable due to the wording of the armour spikes just looking for feed back
I can just see the mighty fighter trying to chestbump his opponent to death.
Ohh I want to add some realism. If you've ever been shoulder rammed hard without pointy metal spikes you will know it can take the wind out of you and even break ribs. Less obvious than punching and kicking it is still used in quite a few martial arts.
Here's your scenario (assuming armor spikes are all over, elbows, shoulders, knees, boots, etc.) It takes a little training to get used to but it's quite possible to strike with every available limb at the same time. It's not really difficult to believe that someone who trains to use a greatsword and spiked armor together(special training i.e. TWF feat tree) in combination will find more openings to attack than someone who uses a greatsword exclusively(has feats to spend elsewhere)
It eats up your entire character's feats, and the character is more MAD, but allows you more offensive power.
Example of 2 level 12 human fighters(assuming focusing on doing damage)
(greatsword and spiked armor)
Human Weapon Focus(greatsword)
1 Weapon Focus(armor spike), two-weapon fighting
2 double slice
3 power attack
4 weapon spec(greatsword)
5 weapon spec(armor spike)
6 improved two weapon fighting
7 free feat to diversify
8 GWF(greatsword)
9 GWF(armor spike)
10 Improved critical(greatsword)
11 Two-weapon rend/Greater TWF
12 Greater WS(greatsword)
Greatsword only fighter
human WF(greatsword)
1 Power attack, free feat to diversify
2 free feat to diversify
3 free feat to diversify
4 Weapon Spec(greatsword)
5 free feat to diversify
6 free feat to diversify
7 free feat to diversify
8 GWF(greatsword)
9 Improved Crit(greatsword)
10 free feat to diversify
11 free feat to diversify
12 Greater weapon spec(greatsword)
So yes, combining the two is very powerful, but it takes everything the character gets to do it even with fighters getting a feat every level. Note if example 1 was not human there would be no free feat in the build. No iron will, combat manuever's, lunge, step-up, disruptive or any of the other nice new fighter friendly feats paizo has put in place.
just to change this topic a bit, I know of a ranger (low level now so only 1 attack per round) using a bow with armour spikes (which he uses of AoO)which i think is not possable due to the wording of the armour spikes just looking for feed back
If someone starts casting a spell in his face and he holds onto his bow and makes an AoO by say smashing the person in the face using an elbow spike I'm totally ok with that. Or a spikey knee to the groin! That'll throw off your concentration.
just to change this topic a bit, I know of a ranger (low level now so only 1 attack per round) using a bow with armour spikes (which he uses of AoO)which i think is not possable due to the wording of the armour spikes just looking for feed back
It's absolutely okay. That's why archers and pole armed equipped fighters wear spiked armor.
You are allowed to use a natural bit attack as a secondary attack. So I would say this is alright. You are still getting the full minuses, and armor spikes are not as good as a natural weapon.
I haven't even thought of ruling yet. I've been thinking of a dwarven fighter (because I see dwarves doing something that would put them in harm's way just for the sake of more offensive punch) that swings wildly with his greatsword, perhaps while alcoholic spittle flings from his mouth as he roars. Then twisting around and actually belly bumping the stunned orc and impaling him on spikes.
The images in my head are hilarious.
Damned cheesy cheese.
Damned cheesy cheese.
Nothing cheesy about it.
1. Fighting with a two handed weapon and armor spikes gives a slight advantage at low levels and no advantage at all at higher levels. The "numbers" simply do not back up your hyperbole.
2. In fact, the need to enchant two weapons and pursue two separate feat trees makes it a decidedly suboptimal choice at medium to high levels.
3. It was explicitly permitted in 3.5 and none of the applicable rules have changed.
Damned cheesy cheese.Nothing cheesy about it.
1. Fighting with a two handed weapon and armor spikes gives a slight advantage at low levels and no advantage at all at higher levels. The "numbers" simply do not back up your hyperbole.
2. In fact, the need to enchant two weapons and pursue two separate feat trees makes it a decidedly suboptimal choice at medium to high levels.
3. It was explicitly permitted in 3.5 and none of the applicable rules have changed.
3.5 is NOT pathfinder. If there is no errata on PATHFINDER it doesn't work.
2 Feat trees? I don't think you need a feat tree for fighting with a 2 handed weapon, so you will be expending the same any 2 weapon fighter would.The numbers DO back me up, a build that ALWAYS does more damage than ANY other build (and a lot, actually) is unbalanced AND you are getting the best of both worlds just cause you have little pointy things in your armor, please.
Any two weapon fighter has to enchant 2 different weapons, that's a non issue.
As I pointed out earlier, I'm completelly ok with iterative attack's with different weapons (2 handed, armor spikes, unnarmed) 2 weapon fighting with a 2 handed weapon and armor spikes is lame and unbalanced. 3.5 crew were idiots to allow it, don't think Pathfinder is gonna. (pretty sure they wont even adress it)
3.5 is NOT pathfinder. If there is no errata on PATHFINDER it doesn't work.
Excuse me? You seem to be operating under the incredibly arrogant assumption that your interpretation is somehow the default, and that anyone else needs special permission. The rules permit spikes to be used with a two-handed weapon. They did before and they do now. Run your game how you want, but don't keep trying to mislead others. The rules don't support your interpretation. You're just going to have to learn to deal with it.
2 Feat trees? I don't think you need a feat tree for fighting with a 2 handed weapon, so you will be expending the same any 2 weapon fighter would.
Two Weapon fighting is almost universally regarded as inferior to Two Handed Fighting for any character that doesn't have precision damage. The only way to keep up to the damage potential of a two handed fighter is to pursue both the two weapon fighting feat tree and the single weapon enhancement feats. Not to mention that since you're using two different weapons, you double the number of feats you need to pull it off.
The numbers DO back me up, a build that ALWAYS does more damage than ANY other build (and a lot, actually) is unbalanced AND you are getting the best of both worlds just cause you have little pointy things in your armor, please.
This is just an out and out lie.
Any two weapon fighter has to enchant 2 different weapons, that's a non issue.
It's very much an issue.
As I pointed out earlier, I'm completelly ok with iterative attack's with different weapons (2 handed, armor spikes, unnarmed) 2 weapon fighting with a 2 handed weapon and armor spikes is lame and unbalanced. 3.5 crew were idiots to allow it, don't think Pathfinder is gonna. (pretty sure they wont even adress it)
Ah yes, people who disagree with you are "idiots." I had forgotten that you were one of those people. I should have realized that when your contribution to the discussion was "cheesy cheese." My mistake for replying to you in the first place.
Then you are denying one of the biggest selling points of Pathfinder, the backwards compatibility, by stating identically written rules have different results.
Opinions of balance does not influence how the rules work. An archer is obviously superior using a composite longbow instead of a composite shortbow (or worse, a heavy crossbow). I don't declare the rules as being misinterpreted by munchkins who expect composite longbows to be usable while mounted, I accept that some builds are superior to others and make HOUSE RULES if I feel the disparity is detrimental to the game.
3.5 is NOT pathfinder. If there is no errata on PATHFINDER it doesn't work.Excuse me? You seem to be operating under the incredibly arrogant assumption that your interpretation is somehow the default, and that anyone else needs special permission. The rules permit spikes to be used with a two-handed weapon. They did before and they do now. Run your game how you want, but don't keep trying to mislead others. The rules don't support your interpretation. You're just going to have to learn to deal with it.
2 Feat trees? I don't think you need a feat tree for fighting with a 2 handed weapon, so you will be expending the same any 2 weapon fighter would.Two Weapon fighting is almost universally regarded as inferior to Two Handed Fighting for any character that doesn't have precision damage. The only way to keep up to the damage potential of a two handed fighter is to pursue both the two weapon fighting feat tree and the single weapon enhancement feats. Not to mention that since you're using two different weapons, you double the number of feats you need to pull it off.
The numbers DO back me up, a build that ALWAYS does more damage than ANY other build (and a lot, actually) is unbalanced AND you are getting the best of both worlds just cause you have little pointy things in your armor, please.This is just an out and out lie.
Any two weapon fighter has to enchant 2 different weapons, that's a non issue.It's very much an issue.
As I pointed out earlier, I'm completelly ok with iterative attack's with different weapons (2 handed, armor spikes, unnarmed) 2 weapon fighting with a 2 handed weapon and armor spikes is lame and unbalanced. 3.5 crew were idiots to allow it, don't think Pathfinder is gonna. (pretty sure they wont even adress it)Ah yes, people who disagree with you are "idiots." I had forgotten that you were one of those people. I should have realized that when your contribution...
I'm sorry you got pissed mate. Really am. People that disagree with me are people, that's normal. Making a crappy rule is idiocy in my book, wheter I agree with it or not.
But to say the least, please, please state where do the numbers don't back me up. Str x 2.5 (with a feat) Power attack x 4. That alone is a lot of damage, right? Ohh, and the penalty is just -2... hummm... I doubt you can come up with numbers to back up your claim. But if you do, I'll bow down to that.
2 Weapon fighting is feat expensive, but it's not inferior in anyway to 2 handed weapons, never was.
My assuption is simple, it's not on the book. In fact, in the book it says you need a free limb to use armor spikes. The only reference that people can come up with for this combo to be possible is a FAQ from 3.5 NOT pathfinder. So, it's not valid.
You are an smart guy, I've seen it, you've been playing for years from what I can recon, I really simply cannot understand why you back this one up. It's ugly and unbalanced, cause no one would ever make other 2weapon fighting build.
In fact, in the book it says you need a free limb to use armor spikes.
Not exactly.
It says:
"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.)"
The fact that it mentions having a weapon in your offhand while attacking with armor spikes indicates that the offhand doesn't necessarily have to be free.
It doesn't actually specify that any limb need be free at all. If it does, please show me.
@Xum: Thank you very much for the kind words. I apologize for over-reacting to your post.
As for defending the armor spikes combo, whenever I've created sample builds, I just haven't seen that much of a difference. A few points here, a few points there. It just doesn't seem that much to worry about. I just don't understand the visceral reaction that some people seem to feel about it. It's just another build to me.
And again, sorry if I misinterpreted your "tone." It's just that I've run into a couple of regular posters who are so endlessly and thoughtlessly aggressive, rude, and condescending that sometimes I let it color my interpretation of others. My bad.
I'm with Xum on this one. If you strip away all the imagery, what you get is technically a Two-Weapon Fighter that fights with a great weapon in his main hand and a light weapon in his off hand. This two-weapon fighter benefits from 1.5 Str from his main hand and more damage on standard actions. That's not RIA IMO.
@Xum: Thank you very much for the kind words. I apologize for over-reacting to your post.
As for defending the armor spikes combo, whenever I've created sample builds, I just haven't seen that much of a difference. A few points here, a few points there. It just doesn't seem that much to worry about. I just don't understand the visceral reaction that some people seem to feel about it. It's just another build to me.
And again, sorry if I misinterpreted your "tone." It's just that I've run into a couple of regular posters who are so endlessly and thoughtlessly aggressive, rude, and condescending that sometimes I let it color my interpretation of others. My bad.
I am agressive when defending my ideas, but I try not to be rude or condescending. Or agressive towards people, I'm just... passionate. Sorry again for getting u pissed. But I tend to do that, it's a gift :) and a curse.
As to this "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" I know it does say off-hand weapon, but a 2 handed weapon uses your off hand too.
And it makes no sense in my mind that you can, use a bow and spikes, 2handed weapons and spikes, sword and spikes, sword and board and spikes and not 2 weapons and spikes. Why!?
They say spikes are on the legs and all, why not just give it an extra attack to everyone then? Why do the 2 weapon fighter (the real one) get hosed? It makes no sense to me. And as I said on the BOOK it isn't clear if it's possible, acording to my interpretation it isn't and FAQs from other editions hardly help in this subject.
TWF generally works now if you get high crit ranged weapons and go with critical effects. With more attacks, you get a higher chance of criticals, so you get a benefit there. However you are still spending twice the amount of feats than any other build would to be effective.
I apologize for repeating myself, but since it was 4 months ago, some folks may have missed it.
SRD: "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.) "
So it is a light weapon when used outside of a grapple right?
We can all agree on that?
OK.
SRD: "Light: A light weapon is used in one hand."
I apologize for repeating myself, but since it was 4 months ago, some folks may have missed it.
SRD: "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.) "
So it is a light weapon when used outside of a grapple right?
We can all agree on that?
OK.
SRD: "Light: A light weapon is used in one hand."
So, what you are saying is that armor spikes aren't a weapon that can be used since they are not in one hand?