So, what you are saying is that armor spikes aren't a weapon that can be used since they are not in one hand?
Right! No! Wait, there a hand that can't be used unless it is light outside! That must be it!
I'm just pointing out that the rules say you need a hand free to use them outside of a grapple, and that they have a few other specific characteristics common to all light weapons.
SRD: "Light: A light weapon is used in one hand. It is easier to use in one's off hand than a one-handed weapon is, and can be used while grappling (see Combat). Add the wielder's Strength modifier to damage rolls for melee attacks with a light weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or half the wielder's Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand. Using two hands to wield a light weapon gives no advantage on damage; the Strength bonus applies as though the weapon were held in the wielder's primary hand only.
An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon."
As I pointed out in my original post, armor spikes in Pathfinder are probably more like the armor worn by TMNT's The Shredder, then a pair of spiked suspenders or cod piece. If you want to affect someone with the spikes outside of a grapple (without all the normal grapple limits) you need to have a hand free.
As I pointed out in my original post, armor spikes in Pathfinder are probably more like the armor worn by TMNT's The Shredder, then a pair of spiked suspenders or cod piece. If you want to affect someone with the spikes outside of a grapple (without all the normal grapple limits) you need to have a hand free.
That sets up some strange situations.
If you are right, then a character with a short sword in one hand and a torch in the other is incapable from attacking with armor spikes. Just because they don't have a hand free.
Would you also say that to perform a bullrush you need a hand free? I only ask, because many of the ways you would actually push a target would bring armor spikes to bear as well. And if you can't bring armor spikes to bear without a hand free, it would seem you wouldn't be able to bull rush either.
As I pointed out in my original post, armor spikes in Pathfinder are probably more like the armor worn by TMNT's The Shredder, then a pair of spiked suspenders or cod piece. If you want to affect someone with the spikes outside of a grapple (without all the normal grapple limits) you need to have a hand free.That sets up some strange situations.
If you are right, then a character with a short sword in one hand and a torch in the other is incapable from attacking with armor spikes. Just because they don't have a hand free.
Would you also say that to perform a bullrush you need a hand free? I only ask, because many of the ways you would actually push a target would bring armor spikes to bear as well. And if you can't bring armor spikes to bear without a hand free, it would seem you wouldn't be able to bull rush either.
The thing is, technically. You can't make an armor spike attack if you've done an off-hand attack. That's the way the rules are.
People here are saying that you can use it if you use a two-handed weapon, a shield, and even a bow (crazy stuff can happen here) and me and fergie(it seems) disagree with that statement wholeheartedly. It leads to munchkinism and it's senseless.The way I see it, if you use your off-hand for anything in the round (firing a bow, using a two-handed weapon, attacking with your shield) you cannot use armor spikes, looks like some people do not agree with that though.
If you are right, then a character with a short sword in one hand and a torch in the other is incapable from attacking with armor spikes. Just because they don't have a hand free.
Correct. Think of a Cloud Giant (Huge-15' reach) with armor spikes, short sword, and torch standing on the far side of a 10 foot wide lava pit. How is he going to attack you with armor spikes?
Would you also say that to perform a bullrush you need a hand free? I only ask, because many of the ways you would actually push a target would bring armor spikes to bear as well. And if you can't bring armor spikes to bear without a hand free, it would seem you wouldn't be able to bull rush either.
Nothing about Bullrush mentions a free hand. There is some line about, "A bull rush attempts to push an opponent straight back without doing any harm." Accidental armor spike damage isn't really part of the game.
Which brings us to another reality of armor spikes - they are probably not very sharp. I know this goes against some of the cool art showing armor covered with 8" long barbed needle sharp spikes, but that wouldn't really stand up to a day of adventuring. If a character is going to do all the normal monkeying around (not to mention getting touch spells from allies, etc.) they aren't going to be covered head to to in giant fishhooks.
EDIT:
"People here are saying that you can use it if you use a two-handed weapon, a shield, and even a bow (crazy stuff can happen here) and me and fergie(it seems) disagree with that statement wholeheartedly. "
Oddly you could grapple (at -4 for not having two free hands) using the armor spikes while holding (but not "armed" with) any of those items. I would think that grapple would require at least a free hand, but apparently not?
|
I'll add my opinion in here as a long time GM (25+ years, been playing for 32 years). It seems the question of legality has been resolved with the below quote, my only issue is with the state of the game today and the over use and abuse of min/maxing , i have never been a fan of min/maxing and i never will and as i GM i would look at the person and the character trying to use this option, if its in following with the characters persona and style even if it wasn't allowed i would probably make the exeption and allow the guy to use it, but if the guy was just doing it to try to squeeze a extra bit of cheeze from his character i would not allow it, just my 2 cents.
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?Also from the 3.5 FAQ page 53.
Spoiler:
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."
Well this would seem to be what the OP was directly referring to. TWF with armor spikes and a two-handed weapon is explicitly allowed. Again, nothing I have found in Pathfinder contradicts this ruling.
I'll add my opinion in here as a long time GM (25+ years, been playing for 32 years). It seems the question of legality has been resolved with the below quote, my only issue is with the state of the game today and the over use and abuse of min/maxing , i have never been a fan of min/maxing and i never will and as i GM i would look at the person and the character trying to use this option, if its in following with the characters persona and style even if it wasn't allowed i would probably make the exeption and allow the guy to use it, but if the guy was just doing it to try to squeeze a extra bit of cheeze from his character i would not allow it, just my 2 cents.
...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?Also from the 3.5 FAQ page 53.
Spoiler:
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,
As I said, another game FAQ shouldn't be used as argument. In the PATHAFINDER book, there is NOTHING that suggests it can be done. Until someone from Paizo Staff says something about this, it shouldn't be regarded as a Rule. Cause it's not.
The thing is, you're interpretation involves a stretch of the RAW whereas the other is perfectly acceptable as written.
The requirement for using armor spikes is that you haven't already used an offhand attack. Does swinging a greatsword use the offhand? Of course. Is swinging a greatsword an offhand attack? Not likely.
You can say that's arguing semantics, but there's a big difference in mechanics based on slightly different wording. When words are used to describe an action like offhand attack, full attack, melee attack, etc. they have very strict meanings. Sure you can interpret them differently if you like, but it doesn't make your stretch of the rules more correct than people following the RAW.
It's fine if you don't care for this use of the rules, but claiming that your interpretation is right until a developer steps in is arrogant, especially since you're the one stretching the RAW.
The thing is, you're interpretation involves a stretch of the RAW whereas the other is perfectly acceptable as written.
The requirement for using armor spikes is that you haven't already used an offhand attack. Does swinging a greatsword use the offhand? Of course. Is swinging a greatsword an offhand attack? Not likely.
You can say that's arguing semantics, but there's a big difference in mechanics based on slightly different wording. When words are used to describe an action like offhand attack, full attack, melee attack, etc. they have very strict meanings. Sure you can interpret them differently if you like, but it doesn't make your stretch of the rules more correct than people following the RAW.
It's fine if you don't care for this use of the rules, but claiming that your interpretation is right until a developer steps in is arrogant, especially since you're the one stretching the RAW.
I am streatching? You can't be serious, can you? Ok then. If that is possible, than for sure it is possible to use a Two-handed sword as main hand (plus off) and a scimitar off hand, right. It's ok according to your interpretation. So, why not?
I am streatching? You can't be serious, can you? Ok then. If that is possible, than for sure it is possible to use a Two-handed sword as main hand (plus off) and a scimitar off hand, right. It's ok according to your interpretation. So, why not?The thing is, you're interpretation involves a stretch of the RAW whereas the other is perfectly acceptable as written.
The requirement for using armor spikes is that you haven't already used an offhand attack. Does swinging a greatsword use the offhand? Of course. Is swinging a greatsword an offhand attack? Not likely.
You can say that's arguing semantics, but there's a big difference in mechanics based on slightly different wording. When words are used to describe an action like offhand attack, full attack, melee attack, etc. they have very strict meanings. Sure you can interpret them differently if you like, but it doesn't make your stretch of the rules more correct than people following the RAW.
It's fine if you don't care for this use of the rules, but claiming that your interpretation is right until a developer steps in is arrogant, especially since you're the one stretching the RAW.
I'm not sure where you're getting that. You can't have a scimitar in the offhand because you need two hands to wield the greatsword. That has nothing to do with making an offhand attack. Please focus on one rule at a time and quote the direct words rather than using what seems obvious to you.
Specifically, where in the rules does it say swinging a greatsword uses an offhand attack.
I am streatching? You can't be serious, can you? Ok then. If that is possible, than for sure it is possible to use a Two-handed sword as main hand (plus off) and a scimitar off hand, right. It's ok according to your interpretation. So, why not?The thing is, you're interpretation involves a stretch of the RAW whereas the other is perfectly acceptable as written.
The requirement for using armor spikes is that you haven't already used an offhand attack. Does swinging a greatsword use the offhand? Of course. Is swinging a greatsword an offhand attack? Not likely.
You can say that's arguing semantics, but there's a big difference in mechanics based on slightly different wording. When words are used to describe an action like offhand attack, full attack, melee attack, etc. they have very strict meanings. Sure you can interpret them differently if you like, but it doesn't make your stretch of the rules more correct than people following the RAW.
It's fine if you don't care for this use of the rules, but claiming that your interpretation is right until a developer steps in is arrogant, especially since you're the one stretching the RAW.
I'm not sure where you're getting that. You can't have a scimitar in the offhand because you need two hands to wield the greatsword. That has nothing to do with making an offhand attack. Please focus on one rule at a time and quote the direct words rather than using what seems obvious to you.
Specifically, where in the rules does it say swinging a greatsword uses an offhand attack.
Quick draw. You can swing the 2 handed and quickdraw ascimitar and off hand attack with it. That's just as much of a stretch as using armor spikes.
"Two-Handed: Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively." That's in the book. So, you DO use your off-hand unless you have more than 2 hands of course.
I am streatching? You can't be serious, can you? Ok then. If that is possible, than for sure it is possible to use a Two-handed sword as main hand (plus off) and a scimitar off hand, right. It's ok according to your interpretation. So, why not?The thing is, you're interpretation involves a stretch of the RAW whereas the other is perfectly acceptable as written.
The requirement for using armor spikes is that you haven't already used an offhand attack. Does swinging a greatsword use the offhand? Of course. Is swinging a greatsword an offhand attack? Not likely.
You can say that's arguing semantics, but there's a big difference in mechanics based on slightly different wording. When words are used to describe an action like offhand attack, full attack, melee attack, etc. they have very strict meanings. Sure you can interpret them differently if you like, but it doesn't make your stretch of the rules more correct than people following the RAW.
It's fine if you don't care for this use of the rules, but claiming that your interpretation is right until a developer steps in is arrogant, especially since you're the one stretching the RAW.
I'm not sure where you're getting that. You can't have a scimitar in the offhand because you need two hands to wield the greatsword. That has nothing to do with making an offhand attack. Please focus on one rule at a time and quote the direct words rather than using what seems obvious to you.
Specifically, where in the rules does it say swinging a greatsword uses an offhand attack.
Quick draw. You can swing the 2 handed and quickdraw ascimitar and off hand attack with it. That's just as much of a stretch as using armor spikes.
"Two-Handed: Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively." That's in the book. So, you DO use your off-hand unless you have more than 2 hands of course.
Of course you use both hands. That doesn't mean you use an offhand attack. Armor spikes don't require a hand to use. The rule for two-handed in no way contradicts the rule for armor spikes: "You can't also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon."
|
I just wanted to add a little something. I think that it is perfectly fine.
But, if the arguement is that you can't armor spike attack with your hand being occupied by something, I would like to point out that most Armor Spikes are attached to Medium and Heavy Armor, to Shields, and maybe like 1% Studded Leather. Drop the Shields and the Studded Leather, and that leaves the vast majority of Spiked Armor as Medium or Heavy, (I would imagine anyway).
Both automatically come with Gauntlets or Spiked Gauntlets, which shouldn't be any different than having a torch in hand for your arguement, right?
A character that has 4 attacks a round, and wearing Spiked Armor, a Spiked Light Shield, a Longsword, and a Silver Gauntlet, could opt to attack with each of those items, without two weapon fighting, right? Through the irit. attacks, I mean.
They could swing their sword, and Shield Bash, smack a werewolf with the Silver Gauntlet holding the Longsword, and then Armor Spike kick a Drow priestess in the face as a full attack, right. If they are really stupid, they could add a bunch of minuses for two weapon fighting and also Spiked Gauntlet punch the first target, as well. What is the difference?
Also, what if you have a character that has no arms, or suitible appendages. Like say a warhorse. Can they not use Armor Spikes?
I just wanted to add a little something. I think that it is perfectly fine.
But, if the arguement is that you can't armor spike attack with your hand being occupied by something, I would like to point out that most Armor Spikes are attached to Medium and Heavy Armor, to Shields, and maybe like 1% Studded Leather. Drop the Shields and the Studded Leather, and that leaves the vast majority of Spiked Armor as Medium or Heavy, (I would imagine anyway).
Both automatically come with Gauntlets or Spiked Gauntlets, which shouldn't be any different than having a torch in hand for your arguement, right?
A character that has 4 attacks a round, and wearing Spiked Armor, a Spiked Light Shield, a Longsword, and a Silver Gauntlet, could opt to attack with each of those items, without two weapon fighting, right? Through the irit. attacks, I mean.
They could swing their sword, and Shield Bash, smack a werewolf with the Silver Gauntlet holding the Longsword, and then Armor Spike kick a Drow priestess in the face as a full attack, right. If they are really stupid, they could add a bunch of minuses for two weapon fighting and also Spiked Gauntlet punch the first target, as well. What is the difference?
Also, what if you have a character that has no arms, or suitible appendages. Like say a warhorse. Can they not use Armor Spikes?
Actually, no. Armor spikes say you can't use another offhand attack with it, so no shield bash then armor spike in the same round.
|
|
My understanding is that the Armor Spikes can not be used as an extra, extra attack. Besically just like any other weapon. Along the same lines as you can't have a +1 Speed Longsword, and 20 +1 Speed shurikens, and get 21 extra free attacks, beyond what you already have. In other words, it does not stack with things like Haste.
Quick draw. You can swing the 2 handed and quickdraw ascimitar and off hand attack with it. That's just as much of a stretch as using armor spikes.
And just as legal by RAW.
Just like if you use a two handed weapon - likely a quarterstaff - you can then cast a Quickened spell with a somatic component even though you have used both of your hands.
I think everyone who has read this thread is quite aware that you don't like it, or that it doesn't feel right with you. And I respect your feeling that Pathfinder should be a separate game from earlier editions. But your opinion doesn't change the fact that the rules, currently, support two handed and shield spikes with regards to two weapon fighting - with a few exceptions.
Actually, no. Armor spikes say you can't use another offhand attack with it, so no shield bash then armor spike in the same round.
Ehh... that is a little gray.
It says they can be used as a regular melee attack or an off-hand weapon. I would think if you use the armor spikes as a regular melee attack, you could shield bash in the same round. If you use the armor spikes as an off-hand weapon, then no you couldn't shield bash.
"You can't also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon."
There is no such thing as an off-hand weapon. Check the weapons table, there is none there. So, we assume that an off-hand weapon is one that is used with your off-hand, correct? Following that assumption and assuming you need your main hand AND your off-hand to use a two handed weapon, wouldn't you have alread made an attack with your off-hand "weapon" when you attack with a 2-handed weapon?
That's the way it reads to me, otherwise you can do the even more ridiculous thing that I said about the scimitar.
"You can't also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon."
There is no such thing as an off-hand weapon. Check the weapons table, there is none there. So, we assume that an off-hand weapon is one that is used with your off-hand, correct? Following that assumption and assuming you need your main hand AND your off-hand to use a two handed weapon, wouldn't you have alread made an attack with your off-hand "weapon" when you attack with a 2-handed weapon?
That's the way it reads to me, otherwise you can do the even more ridiculous thing that I said about the scimitar.
You can do the ridiculous thing with the scimitar. RAW you can shift the greatsword to one hand as a free action then draw and attack with the scimitar.
The greatsword is not an offhand attack unless you're wielding an undersized one and using something else in the main hand. Your interpretation requires many assumptions. There is NOTHING in the RAW preventing the armor spike greatsword combination. To make it not work you have to apply the assumptions you mentioned. Applying assumptions is not following RAW. Completely understandable GMing, but by no means do you have the written rules on your side.
by no means do you have the written rules on your side.
I can agree with that. But I don't think you do either. If it was an easy easy rule all along, it wouldn't generate discussions.
I may not have the rules completelly at my side, but you don't either.
by no means do you have the written rules on your side.I can agree with that. But I don't think you do either. If it was an easy easy rule all along, it wouldn't generate discussions.
I may not have the rules completelly at my side, but you don't either.
I can live with that. It's certainly not spelled out what the correct interpretation is. I think I just took issue with the insistence that everyone else was just ignoring the rules. There's not spelled out rule for or against so it comes down to GM fiat.
I respect considering it to be unbalanced. I personally like the dynamic visual of a warrior swinging his weapon then shoulder checking the enemy with spiked armor. I don't consider it to be particularly unbalanced, but that's up to each individual GM to decide.
In response to Xum saying no one would ever do any other two weapon fighting ideas ever again, is a Minmaximus statement. Meaning, that saying that. Assumes everyone wants to do maximum damage. Always.
What this tells me, is this statement assumes everyone plays their characters exactly the same. Which is wrong, obviously. People play what they enjoy, and providing that we all are individuals with different personalities, this would not be a build that was chosen all the time. IN fact, in my group. I'm the only one that would enjoy the "Devil May Care" attitude of this build. As honestly, who sees the character as being level-headed?
As I said, another game FAQ shouldn't be used as argument. In the PATHAFINDER book, there is NOTHING that suggests it can be done. Until someone from Paizo Staff says something about this, it shouldn't be regarded as a Rule. Cause it's not.
Pathfinder is based on DnD. The language of the rules have not changed. If that is so, till it is addressed in an FAQ for pathfinder, the LOGICAL choice would be that the same ruling stands as the current designers intent. Sorry you don't like it, but if your the GM rule it your way.
Sorry the rules bother you.
PS. This is by far not an OP. Most TWF builds would logically use two weapons of the same type with a 18-20/x2 crit range weapon. That way with all the critical feats and weapon focus feats you would have a 15-20/x3 critials with multiple critical effects.
My 2 cents:
Using a Two Handed weapon and armor spikes is perfectly legal and acceptable and there is nothing cheesy about it.
In exchange for extra damage, such a build will incur significant additional feat requirements and corresponding higher ability scores, and on top of that takes a further -2 to all attacks. Its all a trade off. The character taking the THF and TWF feat trees is going to miss out on quite a few other options, perhaps losing out on cleave/great cleave, critical feats, Weapon Spec, etc..
Also, any additional damage is not going to 'break' the game. Theres a number of ways for PCs and NPCs alike to get additional attacks while wielding a THW; creatures/PCs with natural attacks do it all the time. Heck, with natural attacks you can use two weapon fighting and take the natural attacks as well; a dragon disciple could use two weapons and two weapon fighting and still get an extra bite attack.
|
|
Think of a Cloud Giant (Huge-15' reach) with armor spikes, short sword, and torch standing on the far side of a 10 foot wide lava pit. How is he going to attack you with armor spikes?
Simple. He kicks me.
The question you pose is in regards to armor spikes not spiked gauntlets. Spiked gauntlets cover the hands, armor spikes cover the rest of the body, therefore there is nothing stopping the cloud giant from kicking me with his spiked greaves (shins) or sabatons (boots).
The inclusion of off hand and two handed attacks in a discussion involving armor spikes is irrelevant. You don't require any hands to use armor spikes.
EDIT: For that matter, so is reach irrelevant to the discussion, as I believe I mentioned a page or so back.
Think of a Cloud Giant (Huge-15' reach) with armor spikes, short sword, and torch standing on the far side of a 10 foot wide lava pit. How is he going to attack you with armor spikes?
Simple. He kicks me.
The question you pose is in regards to armor spikes not spiked gauntlets. Spiked gauntlets cover the hands, armor spikes cover the rest of the body, therefore there is nothing stopping the cloud giant from kicking me with his spiked greaves (shins) or sabatons (boots).
The inclusion of off hand and two handed attacks in a discussion involving armor spikes is irrelevant. You don't require any hands to use armor spikes.
EDIT: For that matter, so is reach irrelevant to the discussion, as I believe I mentioned a page or so back.
So, 9 attacks is ok in your books?
Sorry mate, it's not that I don't like the rules, they do not support you. Nor me, ok. But they do not support your ideas either. 3.5 OTHER game. If DnD is what we should use, I could come back to first and second edition and say something about that either, so, not a valid argument.
|
Wow, this is really generating that much discussion? I'm not sure I see the confusion. It's been the same in 3.5 and PRPG, you can 'dual-wield' armor spikes + another weapon. Whether that weapon is two-handed or not doesn't matter.
I've read the rules and really don't see where it denies this. Yes, normally you two-weapon fight with a weapon in each hand. Armor spikes are one of those 'exceptions to the rules' where you can treat them as an off-hand weapon, despite the fact that you aren't really wielding them in a hand at all.
I would allow it. I'd also then laugh because, holy crap, you're gimping the hell out of yourself. You're throwing away a feat and forcing yourself into taking a certain amount of dexterity just so you can give a -2 to your attacks - all for the sake of doing an AWESOME 1d3 attack when you full attack.
Wait, I suppose if they're a ranger they can take TWF without needing the feat or the dexterity. Congrats on making a terrible ranger, I suppose.
|
|
I would allow it. I'd also then laugh because, holy crap, you're gimping the hell out of yourself. You're throwing away a feat and forcing yourself into taking a certain amount of dexterity just so you can give a -2 to your attacks - all for the sake of doing an AWESOME 1d3 attack when you full attack.
Wait, I suppose if they're a ranger they can take TWF without needing the feat or the dexterity. Congrats on making a terrible ranger, I suppose.
? Armor spikes do 1d6 damage, no different than a short sword in your off hand. The main difference is it's only a x2 crit instead of 19-20/x2, but that's offset by the fact that you can have a two-handed weapon as your 'main' weapon.
Really, it's not much better or worse than any other two-weapon fighter.
One of the points I think people miss is this:
What is the Off-Hand?
It's either your weaker hand, or it is your weaker attack. You have to choose between either saying the off-hand is literally your one hand OR the off-hand being a label for a body slot that holds a weapon, and is your weaker attack.
Since we know that armor spikes are not held in your hand we have to conclude that the off-hand is not your hand itself, it's actually just your secondary (for lack of better word) attack.
I see a lot of people saying the off-hand is being used, but since we know the off-hand is now your body (for armor spikes) then it isnt being used. Off-hand has NOTHING to do with your hands.
One of the points I think people miss is this:
What is the Off-Hand?
It's either your weaker hand, or it is your weaker attack. You have to choose between either saying the off-hand is literally your one hand OR the off-hand being a label for a body slot that holds a weapon, and is your weaker attack.
Since we know that armor spikes are not held in your hand we have to conclude that the off-hand is not your hand itself, it's actually just your secondary (for lack of better word) attack.
I see a lot of people saying the off-hand is being used, but since we know the off-hand is now your body (for armor spikes) then it isnt being used. Off-hand has NOTHING to do with your hands.
True, but two handed weapons takes up both hands. The physical one, and the metaphorical game ones. That is why I don't think off handed attacks were meant to be used with two handed weapons.
The buckler is proof of this. As you can see it specifically calls out the a two handed weapon as using the offhand.
PRD
Buckler: This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm. You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it. You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon), but you take a –1 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. This penalty stacks with those that may apply for fighting with your off hand and for fighting with two weapons. In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you lose the buckler's AC bonus until your next turn. You can cast a spell with somatic components using your shield arm, but you lose the buckler's AC bonus until your next turn. You can't make a shield bash with a buckler.
Edit: When you use your "offhand" you are giving up the extra attack and/or use of that "hand" for extra power.
Concero found a nice comparison. Considering THOSE rules we can all see that RAI is that Armor Spikes + 2 handed are not meant to go together.
Concero found a nice comparison. Considering THOSE rules we can all see that RAI is that Armor Spikes + 2 handed are not meant to go together.
The buckler is worn on your arm and interfere's with your swinging the weapon. It has nothing to do with armor spikes. In fact nothing to do with armor spikes has anything to do with a free hand, so I don't know where this notion comes from. That's like saying you can't walk on your hands because your foot is broken.
Board ate my post sorry if it's here twice.
Greatsword-spike fighter
Pro's high damage output and high damage output
Con's High MAD, takes all feats available to get needed feats, penalties to hit, weak when can't full attack, extra expense of enchanting more weapons, harder time dealing with DR and fast healing
Greatsword only fighter
Pro's High damage output, low stat dependency, better chance to hit, can make maximum use of feats like vital strike and cleave, Many free feats for things such as combat manuevers or improved iron will, that may keep you from killing your group when you roll that 1 on dominate person
Con's lower damage output than greatsword-spike fighter on full attacks.
If someone wants to build a spike-greatsword fighter I would let them, but they should realize they will be frustrated any time they can't full attack because of using a greatsword with lower strength, and may spend a more time out of battle than other fighter builds due to failed saves.
Has this been discussed yet?
Exotic Weapon: Barbazu Beard
Cost 25 gp; Dmg (S) 1d3; Dmg (M) 1d4; Critical ×2; Range
Increment —; Weight 5 lbs.; Type Slashing
Popular in Egorian but rarely seen elsewhere, a barbazu
beard is an intimidating helm with a full facemask wrought
to look like a snarling barbazu’s head. Extending from the
chin area of the face guard is a razor-sharp blade much like an
actual barbazu’s beard, usually 8 inches long but sometimes
longer. A barbazu beard can be used as an off-hand weapon
that requires no hands to use; thus, a warrior could combine
use of a barbazu beard with a two-handed weapon. It otherwise
follows all rules for using an off-hand weapon. Attacking with
a barbazu beard provokes an attack of opportunity. Because it
is so close to the wearer’s face, using a barbazu beard against
creatures harmful to touch (such as fire elementals and
acidic oozes) has the same risks as using a natural weapon or
unarmed strike against these creatures.
A barbazu beard is a light melee exotic weapon.
From that, I gather that the possibility of using no-hand-offhand weapons with two-handed weapons in Pathfinder exists, provided it is explicitly stated (as above). It comes with sensible caveats and drawbacks (like provoking AoOs).
Any thoughts?
Greatsword-spike fighter
Pro's high damage output and high damage output
Con's High MAD, takes all feats available to get needed feats, penalties to hit, weak when can't full attack, extra expense of enchanting more weapons, harder time dealing with DR and fast healing
So, how is that different from a two-weapon fighter? And how is the part I bolded true? He will have greater damage output than a normal 2 weapon fighter, greater than sword and board, he is the one that is gonna have less problem with DR and fast healing than ALL builds.
Feat expensive? Sure, like all 2 weapon builds, it's a choice really. And I do believe that most builds are made to full attack, most people I've seen don't care so much about vital strike.This guy is gonna deal MORE damage than a guy with 2 Bastard swords with less penalty and less feats.
True, but two handed weapons takes up both hands. The physical one, and the metaphorical game ones.
Dont agree.
That is why I don't think off handed attacks were meant to be used with two handed weapons.
Wizards have stated that it was the intent to allow this. I get the feeling here that you guys are looking for ways to disallow this because you dont like it, not because it isnt RAW. (side note: Wizards designed this combat system that Paizo uses, so to say that you need a ruling from Paizo doesnt make sense, since nothing has changed with regard to TWF with Armor Spikes)
You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon)
That off hand refers to your free hand not the "off-hand" that means your secondary attack. You guys are constantly getting off hand the attack and the actual hand mixed up.
What bothers me is how technical you guys get about the terms but you fail to see that armor spikes is an off-hand attack. Doesnt that bother you?
So, 9 attacks is ok in your books?
Sorry mate, it's not that I don't like the rules, they do not support you. Nor me, ok. But they do not support your ideas either. 3.5 OTHER game. If DnD is what we should use, I could come back to first and second edition and say something about that either, so, not a valid argument.
... You keep on grasping at this one thing, that this isn't the same game, however the rules on this are the same.
P.S. Also, it isn't how many attacks you get, it is what you can do with it. The 3.5 monk is proof of that. They got a ton of attacks, but required a lot of stats, and hand moderate base attack bonus. They couldn't do anything with the attacks they got because the bonuses to hit were too week, and they couldn't muster up enough damage to compensate for anything. This brought on the term "Band-add on a SUCKING chest wound" for any feat or PrC that was overly good for the cost specifically for the monk that came out, as it never seemed like enough.
Has this been discussed yet?
Exotic Weapon: Barbazu Beard
Cost 25 gp; Dmg (S) 1d3; Dmg (M) 1d4; Critical ×2; Range
Increment —; Weight 5 lbs.; Type Slashing
Popular in Egorian but rarely seen elsewhere, a barbazu
beard is an intimidating helm with a full facemask wrought
to look like a snarling barbazu’s head. Extending from the
chin area of the face guard is a razor-sharp blade much like an
actual barbazu’s beard, usually 8 inches long but sometimes
longer. A barbazu beard can be used as an off-hand weapon
that requires no hands to use; thus, a warrior could combine
use of a barbazu beard with a two-handed weapon. It otherwise
follows all rules for using an off-hand weapon. Attacking with
a barbazu beard provokes an attack of opportunity. Because it
is so close to the wearer’s face, using a barbazu beard against
creatures harmful to touch (such as fire elementals and
acidic oozes) has the same risks as using a natural weapon or
unarmed strike against these creatures.
A barbazu beard is a light melee exotic weapon.From that, I gather that the possibility of using no-hand-offhand weapons with two-handed weapons in Pathfinder exists, provided it is explicitly stated (as above). It comes with sensible caveats and drawbacks (like provoking AoOs).
Any thoughts?
THAT I can agree with. AoO and Exotic weapon proficiency. And it expecificly states that it can be used with no hands and a 2 handed weapon.
The key to any argument regarding weaponry is that definitions must agree, AND those weapons have to be available at the START of the round in order to be ready for full attack actions.
THe example in the book of attacking with a Greatsword and quickdrawing a dagger to throw is using iterative attacks, NOT TWF. Why? Because the dagger was not available at the beginning of the round. It gives no basis for TWF. THe dagger was not in hand at the beginning of the fight.
You CANNOT quickdraw something and become a TWF after your attack has begun. It must be declared ahead of time. That's part and parcel of declaring a full attack. Getting rid of a weapon to draw another is a function of ITERATIVE rules, not TWF.
The whole argument about 'off hand attack' with spikes 'not requiring a hand' is a smokescreen. Off hand spike/UA attacks are treated as light weapons, and light weapons require a hand free...regardless if you are going to use that hand or not! Furthermore, they have to be available at the beginning of the round to be effective, just like any other weapon! Armor spikes have nothing in their usage to escape this simple rule!
Since your off hand is occupied on your Greatsword, your armor spikes are NOT readied. (Furthermore, there is nothing in the rules that says if you drop your hand from your Greatsword (free action) you can put it back as a free action! You can houserule Quickdraw to possibly do this, but it would be a house rule. Yes, there are disadvantages to using THW, and getting your hands in the correct grip is part of the requirement of swinging around a big honking peice of weaponry.)
So this is your problem. To satisfy ALL the conditions of TWF, you have a mutually exclusive problem...you need to have a hand free to satisfy the 'light weapon' condition, and you need to use that hand to wield the Greatsword. And you have to have both those mutually exclusive positions met at the beginning of your turn.
Just like UA, it does not matter IF you can attack with something besides that hand...the rules clearly state that hand must be free. (If you like, consider that you must have the POTENTIAL of attacking with that limb available, even if you are going to knee him, kick him, or headbutt him). And if it isn't free at the beginning of your attack sequence, then you have a problem.
This does NOT mean you can't use Armor Spikes+Longspear to threaten all areas...but in this case you are using Iterative Attacks, NOT TWF. If AoO's pop up, it's the same thing as someone who has two weapons in hand, you can only use the one of them, so that's what you do...use the better weapon for the AoO.
==Aelryinth
The barbazu beard is an excellent addition to the argument. It takes an EXOTIC weapon to get around the 'light weapon needs a hand free' restriction.
Perfect. Armor spikes are not exotic weapons.
==Aelryinth
Greatsword-spike fighter
Pro's high damage output and high damage output
Con's High MAD, takes all feats available to get needed feats, penalties to hit, weak when can't full attack, extra expense of enchanting more weapons, harder time dealing with DR and fast healing
So, how is that different from a two-weapon fighter? And how is the part I bolded true? He will have greater damage output than a normal 2 weapon fighter, greater than sword and board, he is the one that is gonna have less problem with DR and fast healing than ALL builds.
Feat expensive? Sure, like all 2 weapon builds, it's a choice really. And I do believe that most builds are made to full attack, most people I've seen don't care so much about vital strike.
This guy is gonna deal MORE damage than a guy with 2 Bastard swords with less penalty and less feats.
To deal with DR your best option is lots of damage in one hit. Lots of little hits doesn't doesn't do near as much as a few big hits against these opponents. The more DR they have the more the big hit outdistances TWF. If they have fast healing it just defeats the flurry of scratches even more, and every time you miss by 1-2 you know it was from TWF penalties.
I really don't want to make a build and crunch numbers to show this it's a pretty simple concept.
If your TWF does 2 hits for 13 and 7 and your enemies have DR 10 you did 3 damage
The greatsword only fighter should have amuch higher strength(20-22ish by 5th level) and start out at 5th level with 2d6+(7-8 from str)+2spec,+1 weapon training so you're looking at a minimum of 12 damage and up to 23 without a magic weapon so against a DR 10 opponent you're counting on 7-8 damage per round if you can't bypass it, power attack will help even more.
to TWF you have higher dex so you're looking good if you have 16 STR at this point so your greatsword is doing 2d6+4 from str+2 from spec if you can fit it in and +1 from weapon training so minimum 9 ideally up to 19 max so on ave 4 damage is going through DR 10, your spikes can't even get through without a crit or power attack. You also have a lower chance to hit.
THAT I can agree with. AoO and Exotic weapon proficiency. And it expecificly states that it can be used with no hands and a 2 handed weapon.
TWF is bogged down with so many useless feats as it is right now, this is just another feat cost to what is already a far from decent build.
The barbazu beard is an excellent addition to the argument. It takes an EXOTIC weapon to get around the 'light weapon needs a hand free' restriction.
Perfect. Armor spikes are not exotic weapons.
==Aelryinth
reading skills please. The beard is an exotic weapon because you are attacking them with your face. It takes an EXOTIC weapon to get around the 'light weapon needs a free hand' restriction is not the same as "this light weapon gets around the free hand restriction"
In a discusion about armor spikes it is best to read the entry about armor spikes which states you can use them as an offhand weapon and that they do not occupy a hand, so a monk wearing spiked armor who had no hands could TWF by kicking followed by an attack from his armor spikes.. I rest my case.
The barbazu beard is an excellent addition to the argument. It takes an EXOTIC weapon to get around the 'light weapon needs a hand free' restriction.
Perfect. Armor spikes are not exotic weapons.
==Aelryinth
reading skills please. The beard is an exotic weapon because you are attacking them with your face. It takes an EXOTIC weapon to get around the 'light weapon needs a free hand' restriction is not the same as "this light weapon gets around the free hand restriction"
In a discusion about armor spikes it is best to read the entry about armor spikes which states you can use them as an offhand weapon and that they do not occupy a hand, so a monk wearing spiked armor who had no hands could TWF by kicking followed by an attack from his armor spikes.. I rest my case.
Agreed.
In a discusion about armor spikes it is best to read the entry about armor spikes which states you can use them as an offhand weapon and that they do not occupy a hand, so a monk wearing spiked armor who had no hands could TWF by kicking followed by an attack from his armor spikes.. I rest my case.
Errr... what are you talking about?
Errr... what are you talking about?
In a discusion about armor spikes it is best to read the entry about armor spikes which states you can use them as an offhand weapon and that they do not occupy a hand, so a monk wearing spiked armor who had no hands could TWF by kicking followed by an attack from his armor spikes.. I rest my case.
armor spikes
armor spikesErrr... what are you talking about?
In a discusion about armor spikes it is best to read the entry about armor spikes which states you can use them as an offhand weapon and that they do not occupy a hand, so a monk wearing spiked armor who had no hands could TWF by kicking followed by an attack from his armor spikes.. I rest my case.
AAAAhhhhh cool. I thought you were trying to make a point there, sorry about that.
AAAAhhhhh cool. I thought you were trying to make a point there, sorry about that.armor spikesErrr... what are you talking about?
In a discusion about armor spikes it is best to read the entry about armor spikes which states you can use them as an offhand weapon and that they do not occupy a hand, so a monk wearing spiked armor who had no hands could TWF by kicking followed by an attack from his armor spikes.. I rest my case.
Is it really that complicated to have to explain it?
Is it really that complicated to have to explain it?AAAAhhhhh cool. I thought you were trying to make a point there, sorry about that.armor spikesErrr... what are you talking about?
In a discusion about armor spikes it is best to read the entry about armor spikes which states you can use them as an offhand weapon and that they do not occupy a hand, so a monk wearing spiked armor who had no hands could TWF by kicking followed by an attack from his armor spikes.. I rest my case.
No, you are right, I re-read it.
Yes, your monk can do this. (Why he is wearing armor and has bought the 2 weapon fighting tree is beyond me though) Anyway, you know why he can do this? Because he is not using a two-handed weapon. If he was, he would have already used his off-hand "slot" and would be unable to use it. Hands or no hands.
Is it really that complicated to have to explain it?AAAAhhhhh cool. I thought you were trying to make a point there, sorry about that.armor spikesErrr... what are you talking about?
In a discusion about armor spikes it is best to read the entry about armor spikes which states you can use them as an offhand weapon and that they do not occupy a hand, so a monk wearing spiked armor who had no hands could TWF by kicking followed by an attack from his armor spikes.. I rest my case.No, you are right, I re-read it.
Yes, your monk can do this. (Why he is wearing armor and has bought the 2 weapon fighting tree is beyond me though) Anyway, you know why he can do this? Because he is not using a two-handed weapon. If he was, he would have already used his off-hand "slot" and would be unable to use it. Hands or no hands.
You are right on the part about me being correct, but not the why. Your opinion is that the two-handed weapon counts as a primary and an offhand, and I can respect that to a degree. The fact of the matter is there is nothing to substantiate that opinion anywhere in the rules. In fact the rules and the inclusion of armor spikes as a potential offhand weapon when they occupy no hand offhand or other leads a reasonable person to assume that the option is there to TWF with them. If you can point to any rule or wording that shows a two-handed weapon denies the ability to use any other part of your body as a weapon I will be happy to consider it, but I am very certain you will not because I don't think such a rule exists. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am in this circumstance.
Wow, this is really generating that much discussion? I'm not sure I see the confusion. It's been the same in 3.5 and PRPG, you can 'dual-wield' armor spikes + another weapon. Whether that weapon is two-handed or not doesn't matter.
I've read the rules and really don't see where it denies this. Yes, normally you two-weapon fight with a weapon in each hand. Armor spikes are one of those 'exceptions to the rules' where you can treat them as an off-hand weapon, despite the fact that you aren't really wielding them in a hand at all.
I defer to your understanding of the rules, but I'm confused by the language of light weapons requiring a hand to use, and nothing (that I have found) providing an exception to that.
"If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. 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. You can reduce these penalties in two ways. First, if your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light. Second, the Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6."
Seems like there is some pretty specific language in there about "primary hand" that adds to my confusion.
"Two-Weapon Fighting (Combat)
You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands."
Pretty specific stuff there...